PAPAL  CLAIMS 


EX  LIBRIS 

GVLIELMI  lOSEPHI  DWYER  S T L 
SANCTI  BERNARDI  ECCLESIAE  PASTORIS 
m KAL  NOV  MDCCCCXXXIIII 


J 


I vi 


j 


\ 


THE  TRUTH  OF  PAPAL  CLAIMS 


THE  TRUTH  OF 
PAPAL  CLAIMS 


BY 

RAPHAEL  MERRY  DEL  VAL,  D.DT 

Archbishop  of  Nicaea 


a iRepig  to 

THE  VALIDITY  OF  PAPAL  CLAIMS 

BY 

F.  NUTCOMBE  OXENHAM,  D.D. 

English  Chaplain  in  Rome 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS, 

ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 

B.  HERDER 

17  SOUTH  BROADWAY 
LONDON : SANDS  & COMPANY 


1902 


^ I^OS 

M5- 

cJy.Z- 


Imprimatur 

Herbert  Cardinal  Vaughan 

Archbishop  of  Westminster 


^1340 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface ix 

Correspondence  in  the  Church  Times — The  reason  of 

this  book ix — xri 

Introductory 1 

Methods  of  argument — The  point  at  issue. 


PART  I 

Doctrine  op  the  Supremacy  and  Infallibility  - - 9 

The  Supremacy — The  Proof  from  Scripture — S.  Peter  in 
relation  to  the  other  Apostles — Difierence  between 
individual  Bishops  and  individual  Apostles — The 
Catholic  Episcopate — Infallibility — What  it  means 
and  what  it  does  not  mean — The  Proof  from  Scrip- 
ture— De  Maistre  — The  Bishops  of  Rome  — The 
Founders  and  the  Bishop — The  Clementine  Romance 
— The  False  Decretals 9 — 32 


PART  II 

The  Venerable  Fathers 33 

Maldonatus  and  Bellarmine — S.  Augustine’s  Retracta- 
tions— S.  John  Chrysostom — S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  33 — 54 


VI 


CONTENTS 


PACK 


PART  III 

Arguments  against  the  Supremacy  and  Infallibility  54 

“Ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  Me  ” (Acts  i.  8) — The  Elec- 
tion of  S.  Matthias — The  Institution  of  Deacons — 
“They  were  sent”  (Acts  viii.) — The  conversion  of 
Cornelius — The  Council  of  Jerusalem — S.  Paul  re- 
bukes S.  Peter  — The  Epistles  of  S.  Paul  — The 
Epistles  of  S.  Peter 54 — 80 

PART  IV 

The  Constant  Belief  of  every  Age  - - - 81 

The  Popes  not  silent  in  the  Early  Ages — S.  Victor  and 
the  Eastern  Churches— S.  Stephen  and  S.  Cyprian — 

The  Text  of  S.  Irenaeus 81 — 109 

PART  V 

Councils  of  the  Church 110 

Necessity  and  Utility — The  Council  of  Nicaea — The 
Sardican  Canon — The  Second  General  Council  — 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  the  Twenty-eighth 
Canon 110—125 


CONCLUSION 


Catholic  England  - - - - - -126 

The  Venerable  Bede — The  Bishops  of  the  Province  of 
Canterbury — The  “Branch  Theory” — Newman  and 
the  Fathers 126 — 129 


APPENDIX 


INDEX 


PAGE 

Introductory 1 

The  Supremacy 9 

Infallibility 17 

The  Bishops  of  Rome 23 

The  Venerable  Fathers 33 

Maldonatus 36 

Bellarmine - - - - 41 

S.  Augustine - • 44 

S.  John  Chrysostom 48 

S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 52 

The  Book  of  Acts 54 

S.  Paul 76 

S.  Peter’s  Epistles 79 

The  Constant  Belief  of  Every  Age 81 

S.  Victor 93 

S.  Cyprian 95 

S.  Irenaeus 101 

Councils  of  the  Church 110 

The  Council  of  Nicsea 113 

The  Sardican  Canon 114 

The  Second  General  Coimcil 118 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  - - - - - - - - 120 

Conclusion 126 

Appendix 


■ M 


I 


PEEFACE 


The  following  correspondence  appeared  lately  in  the 
Church  Times,  and  we  publish  it  here,  as  explaining 
the  reason  of  this  little  book : — 

ROMAN  WAYS  IN  CONTROVERSY. 

Sir, — May  I ask  your  courtesy  for  the  publication  of  the 
following  letter,  which  I have  had  occasion  to  write  to  a 
Roman  priest,  whose  main  occupation  here  in  Rome  appears 
to  be  to  entice  straying  Anglicans  into  the  Roman  fold  : — 

18,  Piazza  del  Popolo, 

11th  March,  1902. 

Rev.  Sir, — I am  informed  that  you  are  preaching  a course  of 
sermons  in  adverse  criticism  of  a small  book  which  I published  on 
“Papal  Claims.”  May  I venture  to  express  a hope  that  you  will 
publish  your  criticisms  in  order  that  they  may  bear  the  test  of 
examination,  and,  if  necessary,  of  reply  ? 

I have  the  honour  to  be. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

F.  N.  OXENHAM. 

The  Rev.  Mons.  Merry  del  Val, 

P.S. — I reserve  to  myself  the  right  of  publishing  this  letter, 
together  with  any  reply  which  you  may  think  fit  to  make. 

To  this  letter  I have  received  no  answer  or  acknowledg- 
ment. 

I had  reason,  arguing  from  precedent,  to  suspect  that 
Mons.  Merry  del  Val  would  probably  make  statements  in 


X 


PREFACE 


these  sermons  which  he  would  not  venture  to  publish ; his 
silence  goes  far  to  confirm  this  suspicion. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  estimate  the  value  of  controversial 
statements  which  a preacher  ventures  to  make  to  a select 
congregation,  but  which  he  does  not  venture  to  publish. 

F.  NUTCOMBE  OXENHAM, 

English  Chaplain  in  Rome. 

March  10th. 


ROMAN  METHODS  OF  CONTROVERSY. 

Sir, — May  I venture  to  trespass  upon  your  valuable  space 
and  say  a word  in  reference  to  a letter  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s 
which  appeared  in  your  issue  of  the  14th  of  March.  It  is  a 
fact  that  on  the  4th  of  March  (not  the  llth)  Dr.  Oxenham 
addressed  to  me  the  letter  which  he  has  published  and  that 
I have  not  replied. 

I should  have  been  glad  to  do  so,  though  unacquainted 
with  Dr.  Oxenham,  had  he  not  added  the  postscript  which 
appears  at  the  foot  of  that  letter.  Without  commenting 
upon  the  form  and  tone  of  what  he  has  written,  I would 
have  replied  that  I was  willing  to  consider  the  utility  of 
publishing  my  lectures,  in  accordance  with  his  request, 
though  it  is  questionable  that  such  a course  could  sub- 
stantially add  anything  to  the  arguments  and  facts  ex- 
pounded so  ably  in  the  following  works  to  which  I refer 
Dr.  Oxenham: — “St.  Peter:  his  Name  and  his  Office,”  by 
T.  W.  Allies;  “The  Catholic  Claims,”  by  Richardson; 
“ History  of  my  Religious  Opinions,”  by  J.  H.  Newman ; 
“ The  Primitive  Church  and  the  See  of  Rome,”  by  Luke 
Rivington;  and  “England  and  the  Holy  See,”  by  Spencer 
Jones,  one  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s  brother  clergymen,  not  to 


PEEFACE 


XI 


mention  other  writers.  I might  have  added  that  if  Dr. 
Oxenham  would  take  pains  to  refer  to  authentic  sources 
and  to  the  original  works  of  the  Fathers  and  of  Catholic 
theologians  he  would  find  a good  deal  to  change  in  such 
astounding  statements  as  the  following,  which  are  contained 
in  his  little  book: — 1.  That  the  “ultramontane  Jesuit 
doctor  (Maldonatus)  acknowledges  (what  every  patristic 
scholar  knows)  that  all  those  great  doctors  of  antiquity, 
and  among  them  three  of  the  greatest — Origen,  Chrysostom, 
and  Augustine — every  one  of  them  differs  from  modern 
Romanists,  and  gives  other  interpretations  to  this  famous 
text  (Matt,  xvi.),  which  other  interpretations  do  not  give 
any  countenance  to  Papal  claims”  (pp.  26-27).  And  on 
page  32  Dr.  Oxenham  sums  up  his  conclusion  thus:  “We 
saw  just  now  how  the  Jesuit  Maldonatus  conclusively  refutes 
the  Papal  assertions  as  to  the  first  text  on  which  they  rely.” 
The  italics  are  my  own.  Dr.  Oxenham  discreetly  suppresses 
all  that  Maldonatus  says  of  the  testimony  of  those  very 
same  Fathers,  and  of  many  others,  upon  this  text,  and  his 
explanation  of  how  the  various  interpretations  of  this  same 
text  may  be  easily  accepted  and  reconciled. 

2.  On  page  33  Dr.  Oxenham,  quoting  from  Dr.  Salmon, 
asserts  that  another  Ultramontane  Roman  writer,  Bellar- 
mine,  can  quote  nothing  earlier  than  the  eleventh  century 
in  support  of  the  Catholic  interpretation  of  the  text  in 
St.  Luke  xxii.  31-32,  upon  which  Bellarmine  hardly  dwells, 
and  he  again  discreetly  suppresses  Bellarmine’s  numerous 
quotations  from  the  early  Fathers  upon  the  Primacy  of 
St.  Peter  and  upon  his  relative  position  to  the  other  Apostles. 
These  are  but  samples  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s  methods  of  contro- 
versy and  of  the  arguments  which  he  uses  to  convince  his 
guileless  readers  of  the  futility  of  Papal  claims.  They  are 


XU 


PEEFACE 


methods  which  I will  leave  others  to  qualify,  as  they  deserve. 
Much  as  I may  differ  from  the  Anglican  position  and  con- 
sider it  untenable,  I can  willingly  acknowledge  that  those 
who  defend  it  with  honesty  and  ability  (and  there  are 
many)  do  not  resort  to  such  questionable  methods  of 
controversy  as  those  which  Dr.  Oxenham  has  adopted  in 
his  little  book. 

It  was  not  my  intention  before,  nor  is  it  my  intention 
now,  to  be  dragged  into  a controversy  in  the  press  with 
Dr.  Oxenham.  I therefore  refrained  from  answering  his 
letter,  for  I could  not  do  so  in  any  form  without  acknow- 
ledging the  right,  which  he  assumed,  of  publishing  any 
reply  which  I might  have  thought  fit  to  make. 

R.  MERRY  DEL  VAL, 

Archbishop  of  Nicaea. 

March  17  th. 


ROMAN  WAYS  IN  CONTROVERSY. 

Sir, — I was  unwilling  to  disturb  the  quiet  of  Holy  Week 
by  taking  any  notice  of  Mons.  Merry  del  Yaks  letter  in 
your  issue  of  March  21st;  but  now  I beg  leave,  by  your 
kind  permission,  to  make  a few  remarks  on  that  letter. 

(1)  I admit  readily  that  I did,  in  my  book  on  “Papal 
Claims,”  make  both  the  “astounding  statements”  to  which 
Mons.  Merry  del  Val  objects;  and  hereby  I distinctly 
reassert  both  those  statements,  because  both  of  them  are 
simply  true,  as  Mons.  Merry  del  Val  might  easily  satisfy 
himself,  if  he  would  take  the  trouble  to  consult  those 
“ original  works  ” to  which  he  is  kind  enough  to  refer  me. 
Your  readers  may  do  the  like. 

(2)  I admit,  wdth  equal  readiness,  that  I did  (to  use 


PREFACE 


Xlll 


Monsignor’s  phrase)  “discreetly  suppress”  those  portions 
of  the  writings  of  Maldonatus  and  of  Bellarmine  to  which 
he  refers. 

I should  not  myself  use,  in  this  sense,  the  word 
“suppress,”  but  I quite  agree  that  it  is  “discreet”  to 
omit  making  long  quotations  which  have  no  bearing  upon 
the  particular  point  in  question. 

This  was  the  simple  and,  I think,  sufficient  reason  for 
both  those  omissions  of  which  Mons.  Merry  del  Val  com- 
plains. 

Let  me  make  this  clear  to  your  readers. 

In  the  first  instance,  my  purpose  was  to  show  that  the 
assertions  made  by  the  Vatican  Council  and  .by  the  present 
Pope  with  reference  to  the  famous  passage  in  St.  Matt, 
xvi.  18,  were  not  true,  those  statements  being  that  the 
Papal  interpretation  of  this  passage  was  “the  venerable 
and  constant  belief  of  every  age,”  and  that  it  was  held  and 
taught  by  “aZZ  the  venerable  Fathers.”  (The  italics  are 
mine.) 

For  this  purpose  I quoted  the  Jesuit  Maldonatus,  who 
admits  that  three  of  the  greatest  of  “the  venerable 
Fathers” — Origen,  Chrysostom,  Augustine — every  one  of 
them  differ  from  this  Papal  interpretation  and  adopt  other 
interpretations,  which  do  not  give  any  countenance  to 
Papal  claims.  The  case  of  St.  Augustine  (shall  I say 
that  Mons.  Merry  del  Val  “discreetly  suppresses”  it?)  is 
particularly  strong,  because,  as  I have  shown  in  “Papal 
Claims”  (pp.  27-28),  St.  Augustine  in  his  younger  days 
had  interpreted  “this  rock”  to  mean  St.  Peter;  but  in 
a book  which  he  wrote  some  years  later  (“Retractations,” 
Book  1,  cap.  21)  he  says  he  thinks  the  interpretation 
which  he  once  gave,  mistaken,  and  that  “this  rock” 


XIV 


PREFACE 


^ means  Christ  Himself.  If  the  interpretation,  which  St. 
\ Augustine  first  gave,  had  been,  as  the  Vatican  Council 
1 declares  that  it  was,  the  “constant  belief  of  every  age,” 
/ it  is  inconceivable  that  St.  Augustine  should  have  thus 
quietly  put  it  aside  and  adopted  another  interpretation. 

Now  if  three  of  the  greatest  of  “the  venerable  Fathers” 
did  not  hold  or  teach  the  Papal  interpretation  of  this  text, 
it  is  plainly  false  to  assert  that  they  “ all  ” did  so  hold  and 
teach. 

That  was  my  only  point,  and  I repeat  that  what 
Maldonatus  says  as  to  Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  Augustine, 
does  “ conclusively  refute  ” the  Papal  assertions  as  to  this 
text. 

“All  that  Maldonatus  says  of  the  testimony  of  those 
very  same  Fathers  and  of  many  others,”  which  Mons.  Merry 
del  Val  accuses  me  of  having  “discreetly  suppressed,”  is 
nihil  ad  rem. 

No  doubt  Maldonatus  quotes  “ many  others  ” who  agree 
with  the  Papal  interpretation;  and,  of  course,  he  thinks 
St.  Augustine  and  the  rest,  who  disagree,  mistaken ; and 
he  tries  to  make  out  that  they  could  not  really  have  meant 
to  differ  from  the  Papal  view.  That  is  so,  no  doubt,  and 
I make  Mons.  Merry  del  Val  a present  of  that  admission, 
if  he  cares  to  have  it. 

In  the  second  instance  of  my  “ discreet  suppressions  ” my 
point  was  to  show  that  what  Mons.  Merry  del  Val  is  pleased 
to  call  “the  Catholic  interpretation”  of  the  text  in  St.  Luke 
xxii.  31-32,  was  not  “the  venerable  and  constant  belief  of 
every  age.”  For  this  purpose  I referred  to  the  statement 
of  “a  recent  learned  writer”  (Dr.  Salmon,  “The  Infallibility 
of  the  Church,”  p.  344)  w^ho  asserts  that  Bellarmine 
“ can  quote  nothing  earlier  than  the  eleventh  century  ” in 


PREFACE 


XV 


support  of  this  “ Catholic  interpretation  ” of  this  text.  If 
nothing  earlier  than  the  eleventh  century  can  be  found  in 
support  of  this  so-called  “Catholic  interpretation,”  it  is 
plainly  false  to  assert  that  it  was  “ the  constant  belief  of 
every  age.”  That  was  my  only  point ; and  it  was  proved. 
That  Bellarmine  makes  “numerous  quotations  from  the 
early  Fathers  upon  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter,  and  upon  his 
relative  position  to  the  other  Apostles,”  is  no  doubt  quite 
true.  And  it  is  equally  true  that  I have  “discreetly 
suppressed” — i.e.^  not  recited — any  of  those  numerous 
quotations,  because  they  were  nihil  ad  rem. 

These  are  the  two  instances  which  Mons.  Merry  del  Val 
selects  as  illustrating  my  “ questionable  methods  of  contro- 
versy,” and  he  gently  intimates  that  there  is  some  lack  of 
“ability  and  honesty”  therein.  My  method  (at  least  so 
far  as  intention  goes)  has  been  to  keep  strictly  to  the  exact 
point  in  question  and  to  try  to  prove  it,  and  not  to  endeav- 
our to  mislead  unwary  readers  by  going  off  on  to  side  issues 
and  trying  to  make  capital  out  of  them  when  you  know 
that  you  have  no  case  as  to  the  main  point  at  issue — e.g.^ 
when  you  are  discussing  whether  three  particular  writers 
did,  or  did  not,  make  certain  statements,  and  when  you 
know  perfectly  well  that  they  did  make  those  statements, 
you  should  not  attempt  to  divert  attention  by  complaining 
that  you  have  not  been  told  what  “ many  other  ” writers 
have  said  on  the  same,  or  a similar,  subject. 

The  method  which  I have  adopted  appears  to  me  to 
have  the  merit  of  “honesty,”  however  much  it  may  lack 
“ability”;  whereas,  in  the  other  method,  although  there 
is  great  scope  for  “ability,”  there  is  not  much  room  for 
“honesty.”  A suspicion  that  something  of  this  latter 
method  might  have  crept  into  the  Monsignor’s  sermons 


XVI 


PEEFACE 


in  criticism  of  my  little  book  was  my  reason  for  wishing 
that  he  would  publish  those  sermons.  I gather  from  his 
letter  to  you  that  probably  these  sermons  will  be  “ discreetly 
suppressed.” 

Here  I take  my  leave  of  Monsignor  Merry  del  Val, 
“Archbishop  of  Nicaea,”  of  which  venerable  diocese  he 
has  about  as  much  rightful  claim  to  be  the  Archbishop 
as  I have. 

F.  NUTCOMBE  OXENHAM. 

18,  Piazza  del  Popolo,  Rome, 

Easter  Monday. 

[We  have  allowed  Mr.  Oxenham  his  right  of  reply,  but  it 
is  quite  impossible  to  continue  this  controversy. — Ed.]. 

The  reader  will  find  in  these  pages  the  substance 
of  five  lectures  delivered  in  Rome  at  the  beginning 
of  this  year.  They  formed  part  of  a whole  series  on 
various  subjects,  and  they  were  addressed  to  converts. 


Feast  of  the  Seven  Dolours,  1902. 


INTRODUCTORY 


It  is  never  a pleasing  task  to  have  to  deal  with 
an  opponent  who  delights  in  sophistry,  but  when  a 
writer  forgets  his  good  manners  and  finds  it  neces- 
sary to  couch  his  specious  reasoning  in  terms  which 
are  offensive  and  discourteous,  the  task  becomes 
more  displeasing  still.  Dr.  Oxenham,  in  his  little 
book  entitled  “The  Validity  of  Papal  Claims” — a 
book  in  which  he  endeavours  to  reply  to  the  Pope’s 
Encyclical  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church — appears  to 
revel  in  abusive  epithets,  and  he  accuses  Leo  XIII. 
of  “ deliberate  mistranslations  and  forgeries,”  of 
“ most  presumptuous  ” and  “ profane  impostures,” 
just  as  on  a previous  occasion  he  did  not  hesitate 
to  charge  the  venerable  Pontiff  with  having  uttered 
a “ deliberate  and  audacious  falsehood.”^  But 
abuse  is  not  argument,  and  I fancy  that  most  people 
will  be  inclined  to  suspect  that  his  position  must  be 
a weak  one  if  it  requires  such  weapons  for  its 
defence. 

The  main  point  at  issue,  as  Dr.  Oxenham  himself 
acknowledges  in  the  opening  chapters  of  his  book, 
is  no  other  than  this : — Did  S.  Peter  hold  the  frivi- 

^ See  Dr.  Oxenham’s  Letter  to  the  Guardian^  Nov.  23,  1896. 

A 


2 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


leges  of  supremacy  and  infallibility  now  claimed 
for  Kim,  and  were  those  frivileges  recognised  by 
all  the  venerable  Fathers  of  antiquity,  and  by  all  the 
holy  and  orthodox  Doctors  of  the  Church,  as  the 
Vatican  Council  asserts,  and  the  'present  Pon- 
tiff teaches  in  his  Encyclical  on  the  Unity 
of  the  Church,  according  to  the  divine  promise  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  given  to  the  Prince  of  His 
Apostles  f 

1.  Now,  as  regards  Dr.  Oxenham’s  manner  of  dealing 
with  the  subject,  I must  first  point  out  that  he 
seems  to  have  experienced  considerable  difficulty 
when  he  came  to  translate  the  very  simple  text  of 
the  Yatican  Council.  No  one  in  the  least  familiar 
with  the  terms  of  ecclesiastical  language,  or  indeed 
with  the  etymology  of  words,  would  venture  to 
translate  discipulorum  principi  ” by  “ the  wisest  of 
His  ApostlesP  And  yet,  this  is  the  version  as  it 
appears  on  page  8 of  Dr.  Oxenham’s  little  book. 
However,  after  he  had  printed  his  book.  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham  discovered  his  mistake,  and  in  the  copy  which 
I possess,^  there  is  inserted  a strip  of  paper  with 
some  Errata,  and  we  are  asked  to  read  Prince  instead 
of  wisest.  It  is  not  easy  to  pass  over  the  mistrans- 
lation as  a printer’s  error,  and  we  are  led  to  wonder 
how  far  we  can  trust  Dr.  OxenEam’s  manner  of 
handling  the  texts  which  he  quotes,  and  whether 
he  is  in  any  way  competent  to  pronounce  upon  a 


1 A friend  of  mine  has  shown  me  a copy  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s  book 
in  which  the  correction  does  not  appear. 


INTEODUCTOKY 


3 


translation  given  by  Leo  XIII.,  wbom  be  accuses 
of  “ deliberately  falsifying  ” tbe  testimony  of  one 
of  tbe  Fatbers.i 

2.  Dr.  Oxenbam  proceeds  at  once  to  abandon 
tbe  main  point  at  issue,  mentioned  above, 
and,  after  tbe  manner  of  tbe  bero  of  Cer- 
vantes, to  combat  an  imaginary  foe.  He  adds  page 
to  page  in  order  to  prove  tbat  tbe  Vatican  Council 
and  tbe  Pope  were  wrong  in  saying  tbat  wbicb 
they  never  did  say.  For  nowhere  bas  tbe 
Council  or  tbe  Pope  asserted  tbat  all  tbe 
venerable  Fathers  and  orthodox  doctors  of 
tbe  Church,  at  all  times  and  on  every  occa- 
sion, even  when  dealing  with  a subject  other  than 
the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter,  have  expressly  described 
or  expounded  at  length  tbe  position  of  S.  Peter,  or 
tbat  each  one  of  tbe  Fathers  bas  been  at  pains  to 
mention  tbat  doctrine  every  time  tbat  be  may  have 
bad  occasion  to  refer  to  one  or  other  of  tbe  three 
famous  texts  quoted  by  Dr.  Oxenbam,  viz. : — “ Thou 
art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I will  build  My  Church, 
and  tbe  gates  of  bell  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 
And  I will  give  to  thee  tbe  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  whatsoever  thou  sbalt  bind  on  earth, 
it  shall  be  bound  also  in  Heaven ; and  whatsoever 
thou  sbalt  loose  on  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in 
Heaven”  (Matt.  xvi.  18).  “Simon,  Simon,  behold 
Satan  has  desired  to  have  you  tbat  be  may  sift  you 


1 Pages  82-85. 


4 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


as  wheat.  But  I have  prayed  for  thee  that  thy  faith 
fail  not : and  thou  being  once  converted,  confirm 
thy  brethren”  (Luke  xxii.  31).  “Peed  my  lambs. 

. . . Feed  my  sheep”  (John  xxi.). 

^ We  all  know,  and  surely  Br.  Oxenham  cannot 
ignore  the  fact,  that  the  Fathers  often  comment  upon 
one  same  text  in  different  ways,  according  to  the  par- 
ticular doctrine  with  which  they  happen  to  be  actually 
dealing,  and  that  they  frequently  use  the  same  text 
in  support  of  several  doctrines.  Nor  do  they  deny 
one  of  the  doctrines  because  they  are  intent  upon 
explaining  another,  and  where  there  is  no  incom- 
patibility between  them.  Now,  I put  it  to  the 
candid  reader — Is  it  honest,  is  it  fair,  to  quote  the 
words  of  a Father  in  connection  with  one  of  the 
texts  already  mentioned,  in  a passage  where  that 
Father  is  not  expressly  discussing  the  supremacy  of 
S.  Peter,  and  perhaps  only  referring  incidentally  to 
this  subject,  and  then,  without  allusion  to  all  that 
the  same  Father  has  taught  elsewhere,  to  conclude 
that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  supremacy  of  the  great 
Apostle,  and  that  the  Pope  is  wrong  in  asserting 
that  all  the  Fathers  have  acknowledged  that 
doctrine?  And  yet  this  is  Dr.  Oxenham’s  method. 
Let  me  give  an  instance. 

He  discusses  separately,  I might  almost  say  he 
dissects  the  three  passages  from  Scripture  above 
mentioned,  and,  with  a fiourish  of  trumpets,  he  pro- 
fesses to  show  that  S.  Chrysostom  is  not  one  of 
the  “ venerable  Fathers  ” who  taught  the  supremacy 


INTRODUCTORY 


5 


of  S.  Peter.  He  quotes  a passage  from  one  of  that 
great  doctor’s  homilies,  in  which,  besides  a number 
of  other  subjects,  S.  John  Chrysostom  comments 
upon  the  fall  of  S.  Peter,  and  refers  to  the  text: 

Simon,  Simon  ...  I have  prayed  for  thee  ” ; 
and  Dr.  Oxenham  concludes  triumphantly  with  these 
words  — “ How  entirely  impossible  would  such  a 
commentary  as  this  be  in  the  mouth  of  a modern 
Papalist ! How  entirely  fatal  to  modern  Papal 
claims  in  regard  to  this  text  is  such  a commentary 
in  the  writings  of  S.  Chrysostom.”^  I intend  dealing 
more  fully,  further  on,  v/ith  Dr.  Oxenham’s  daring 
assertions  in  regard  to  the  teaching  of  Chrysostom, 
and  I shall  show  how  Dr.  Oxenham  has  suppressed 
the  evidence  connected  with  the  point  at  issue,  which 
is  contained  even  in  the  very  homily  to  which  he 
refers  us.  But  I would  ask  here — What  right  has 
he,  in  the  name  of  sheer  honesty,  to  present  S.  John 
Chrysostom  to  his  readers  in  this  way,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Pope’s  assertion,  without  a word  upon 
what  that  great  doctor  says  upon  the  position  of  S. 
Peter  ? What  right  has  he  thus  to  leave  his  readers 
under  the  impression  that  S.  J ohn  Chrysostom  can- 
not be  quoted  as  one  of  the  venerable  Fathers  who 
taught  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter ; which,  as  we 
have  said,  is  the  real  point  at  issue?  What  would 
Dr.  Oxenhan  say  if  I were  to  argue  that  he  admits 
Papal  claims,  by  quoting  some  words  of  his  at  the 


1 Pages  34,  35. 


6 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


end  of  liis  book  without  mentioning  what  is  evident 
from  all  that  be  has  written?  By  such  a method* 
and  with  the  help  of  sophistry  of  this  kind,  one 
^ight  assert  that  Scripture  denies  the  existence 
of  God,  and  then  turn  upon  a critic  with  the  ques- 
tion— Does  the  Scripture  say,  or  does  it  not  say, 
that  There  is  no  God  ” ? Undoubtedly  it  does,  but 
where?  and  when?  and  how? 

3-  Before  a writer  attempts  to  contradict  a teach- 
ing, from  whatever  source  it  may  proceed,  it  is 
essential  that  he  should  ascertain  what  that  teaching 
really  is,  for  otherwise  he  must  inevitably  employ 
his  energies  in  beating  the  air.  Now,  Dr.  Oxenham, 
when  he  comes  to  discuss  the  doctrine  of  S.  Peter’s 
infallibility,  reveals  the  fact  that  he  has  not  even 
understood  the  doctrine  which  he  endeavours  to 
overturn.  On  page  32,  he  comments  upon  the  text 
of  S.  Luke  xxii.,  and  he  writes  as  follows: — “Now, 
if  these  words  of  our  Lord  did  indeed  promise  to 
S.  Peter  that  he  should  be  infallible  and  supreme, 
as  we  are  told  by  the  present  Pope  that  He  did, 
it  is  strange  that  shortly  after  this  promise  S.  Peter 
should  three  times  have  actually  denied  his  Lord — 
this  did  not  look  like  infallibility.”  To  say  nothing 
of  the  fact  that  the  Pope  does  not  even  mention  that 
text  on  pp.  38,  39  of  his  Encyclical,  as  Dr.  Oxenham 
declares  that  he  does,  his  remarks  suffice  to  show 
that  Dr.  Oxenham  imagines,  like  so  many  other 
Protestants,  that  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  infal- 
libility of  S.  Peter  and  of  his  successors  implies 


INTRODUCTOEY 


7 


im'peccdbility,  which  no  Pope,  no  Council,  no  Catholic 
theologian  ever  dreamt  of  asserting.  And  Dr. 
Oxenham  brings  his  mistake  (should  I say  ignor- 
ance?) into  further  prominence  when  he  speaks  of 
the  discussion  between  S.  Peter  and  S.  Paul,  re- 
corded in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  in  regard 
to  which,  on  page  68,  he  says — “For  whether  S. 
Peter’s  fault  on  this  occasion  were  one  ‘ of  faith  ’ 
or  ‘of  fact,’  whether  his  fault  were  ‘ light  and  venial’ 
or  not,  the  fact  remains  that  he  was  in  the  wrong, 
that  S.  Paul  withstood  him  before  the  Church,  and 
openly  rebuked  him.”  If  Dr.  Oxenham  had  taken 
pains  to  find  out  what  is  really  claimed  for  S.  Peter 
and  his  successors  by  the  Vatican  Council  and  by 
the  present  Pope,  and  what  Catholics  mean  by 
infallibility^  he  might  have  avoided  stumbling  into 
a blunder  which  does  away  with  so  many  of  his 
arguments. 

4.  Finally,  we  must  place  on  record  that  Dr. 
Oxenham  employs  a method  of  controversy  which 
he  himself  declares  to  be  unfair.  For  on  page  44  he 
writes  as  follows : — “ It  would  not  be  fair  to  cite 
any  of  those  passages  in  the  life  of  S.  Peter  which 
are  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  because  it  might  be 
urged  that  our  Lord  did  not  confer  on  S.  Peter  his 
great  privileges  until  the  close  of  His  own  earthly 
ministry.”  Yes,  exactly  so,  it  would  not  be  fair, 
or  reasonable,  as  obviously  S.  Peter  did  not  receive 
his  office  until  the  close  of  our  Lord’s  earthly 
ministry,  and  therefore  not  until  after  the  denial. 


8 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


But  tills  method  of  arguing  wliich  Dr.  Oxenham 
pronounces  not  to  be^fair  is  precisely  the  one  which 
he  adopts  all  through  the  first  half  of  his  little 
book ! He  constantly  refers  to  S.  Peter’s  fall  as  an 
argument  against  his  supremacy  and  infallibility, 
and  he  constantly  recalls  the  comments  of  the 
Fathers  upon  S.  Peter’s  sin  as  fatal  to  Papal  claims. 
When  an  author  thus  adopts  a line  of  argument 
which  he  himself  declares  not  to  be  fair,  there  is 
little  left  for  his  critics  to  add. 


PiAPAL  CLAIMS 


PART  I 

A BRIEF  STATEMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

Supremacy  and  Infallibility  of  S.  Peter 
1 — The  Supre77iacy 

Pope  Leo  XIII. ’s  Encyclical  on  the  Unity  of  the 
dkurch  explains  the  Catholicdoctriiie  ol  !S.  PetePs 
aupremacy  so  clearly  and  so  forcibly,  that  my 
readers  have  but  to  peruse  it  to  convince  themselves 
DrT^tDxenham’s  assertions,  * to  the  effect  that 
“ the  teaching  of  Scripture  is  plainly  inconsistent 
with  the  truth  of  such  a doctrine,”^  and  that  the 
texts  quoted  by  Catholics  in  support  of  that  doc- 
trine “ each  and  all  fail  to  declare,  or  even  indeed, 
to  allude  to,  any  such  doctrines,”^  are  undoubtedly 
bold  assertions,  but  assertions  that  are  contrary  to 
fact.  I will  tlierefore  only  give  a summary  of  the 
doctrine  of  S.  Peter’s  supremacy  and  infallibility, 
but  I will  do  so  sufficiently  to  show,  I trust,  how 
little  Dr.  Oxenham  understands  the  position  which 


^Page  16. 


2 Page  40. 


10  PAPAL  CLAIMS 

he  endeavours  to  contradict,  and  how  futile  are  his 
arguments. 

The  two  chief  texts  of  Holy  Scripture  from  which 
the  Catholic  teaching  is  drawn  by  the  Vatican 
Council,  by  the  present  Pope,  by  the  Fathers,  and  by 
our  theologians,  are  the  following  : — 1.  Thou  art 
Kephas  (Eock),  and  upon  this  Kephas  (Eock)  I 

WILL  BUILD  MY  ChURCH,  AND  THE  GATES  OF  HELL 
SHALL  NOT  PREVAIL  AGAINST  IT.  AnD  I WILL  GIVE  TO 
THEE  THE  KEYS  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN.  AnD 
WHATSOEVER  THOU  SHALT  BIND  UPON  EARTH,  IT  SHALL 
■BE  BOUND  ALSO  IN  HEAVEN;  AND  WHATSOEVER  THOU 
SHALT  LOOSE^  ON  EARTH,  IT  SHALL  BE  LOOSED  ALSO  IN 

HEAVEN  ” (Matt.  xvi.).  2.  “ Feed  my  lambs 
. . . Feed  my  sheep  ” (John  xxi.).  Three  times 

our  Lord  gave  this  charge  to  Peter,  andT  we  cannot 
fail  to  note  the  progression,  for  He  first  speaks  of 
the  lambs,  and  then  of  the  sheep  in  the  most  solemn 
manner.  The  text  of  S.  Luke  xxii.,  “ Simon,  Simon, 

BEHOLD  SATAN  HATH  DESIRED  TO  HAVE  YOU  . . . 

BUT  I HAVE  PRAYED  FOR  THEE  THAT  THY  FAITH  FAIL 
NOT  : AND  THOU  BEING  ONCE  CONVERTED,  CONFIRM  THY 
BRETHREN,”  significant  as  it  is  in  the  light  of  the 
two  other  texts,  is  often,  though  not  always,  quoted, 
and  can  be  quoted  in  support  of  the  same  doctrines, 
but  rather  as  cumulative  evidence,  together  with 
other  texts  concerning  S.  Peter.  Neither  the  Vatican 
Council  nor  the  present  Pope  have  said  that  this 
text  of  S.  Luke,  especially  when  taken  separately 
from  the  other  two,  was  never  used  by  the  F athers  to 


THE  SUPREMACY 


11 


further  emphasise  some  of  Christ’s  teaching  on  other 
points  of  doctrine ; and  many  “ modern  Eomanists,” 
as  Dr.  Oxenham  would  call  them,  very  often  hardly 
stop  to  dwell  upon  the  text  of  S.  Luke,  after  having 
proved  S.  Peter’s  position  on  the  strength  of  what 
is  said  in  the  Gospels  of  S.  Matthew  and  of  S.  John.^ 
Undoubtedly  S.  Luke’s  words  are  of  great  signifi- 
cance when  taken  in  connection  with  the  two  most 
important  texts  already  mentioned.  I say  in  con- 
nection with  those  texts ; for  if  we  are  to  know  what 
Scripture  teaches  us  upon  any  subject  we  must 
consider  all  the  texts  that  refer  to  that  subject,  and 
place  them  side  by  side,  and  in  true  harmony  one 
with  another.  We  shall  thus  be  in  a position  to 
gauge  their  exact  meaning  and  significance,  since  a 
teaching  may  not  always  be  found  fully  expounded 
in  one  text.  If  we  proceed,  as  Dr.  Oxenham  pro- 
ceeds, to  cut  up  the  texts,  there  are  many  unquestion- 
able and  unquestioned  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
Paith  which  could  not  be  proved  by  Holy  Writ. 
When  our  Lord  says,  for  instance : “I  and  the 
Father  are  one,”  if  I follow  the  lines  of  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham’s  argument  against  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter, 
I might  say  that  this  text  makes  no  reference  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  that  the  Fathers  who  have  com- 
mented upon  it,  and  spoken  only  of  the  Son,  knew 


^The  Dogmatic  Constitution  of  the  Vatican  Council  rests  chiefly, 
not  to  say  entirely,  upon  the  texts  of  S.  Matthew  and  S.  John,  and 
only  quotes  the  passage  from  S.  Luke  as  further  evidence  on  behalf 
of  the  same  doctrine.  (See  Appendix. ) 


12 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


notliing  of  tlie  existence  of  a tliird  Person  in  the 
Blessed  Trinity. 

Aow,  with  these  texts  before  us,  we  hold,  in  union 
with  the  Yatican  Council,  that  the  Church,  typified 
by  Christ  as  an  Edifice,  as  a Kingdom,  as  a Fold, 
rests  upon  S.  Peter  as  a building  rests  upon  its 
foundation,  that  it  is  ruled  by  S.  Peter,  to  whom  “ the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ” were  given,  that 
it  is  led  and  provided  with  proper  food  by  S.  Peter, 
to  whom  the  care  of  the  whole  flock  was  committed ; 
a care  which,  our  Lord  says,  was  to  be  extended  to 
the  sheep  as  well  as  to  the  lambs,  to  the  chief  mem- 
bers of  the  flock,  therefore,  as  well  as  to  those  who 
are  dependent  upon  them.  If  the  metaphors  chosen 
by  Christ  Himself  mean  anything — and  will  Dr. 
Oxenham  dare  to  assert  that  they  mean  little  or 
nothing? — they  must  signify  what  we  have  just  ex- 
plained, and,  accordingly,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
point  out,  all  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church 
have  held  this  doctrine  of  S.  Peter's  supremacy, 
which,  let  us  remember,  is  the  matter  at  issue.  We 
must  not  tire  of  recalling  this  in  the  face  of  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  evasions. 

First,  then,  if  Christ,  the  Divine  FQDJKte-of  the 
CL^irch,  the  Corner-stone  and  Rock  of  the  J^ifice, 
the  Divine  Head  and  RttIbt'  of  the  Kingdom  of 
heaven,  the  Divine  Shepherd  of  the  Flock,  bestows 
separately  and  individually  upon  one  of  His  dis- 
ciples His  own  title,  and  calls  him  the  Rock  of  the 
Edifice  here  on  earth ; if  He  grants  to  that  disciple 


THE  SUPREMACY 


13 


the  specia,!  powers  of  the  Bulek,  by  handing  io  him 
the  Keys;  if  He,  as  the  Divine  Shepherd,  on  the  .eve 
of  His  Ascension^  commits  the  care  of  His  whole 
Flock  to  that  particular  . disciple,- with  the  powers 
of  ruling,,, C?rot/Wv€6i/)_and  of  feedings  (fSho-KeLv) — what, 
1 ask,  can  be  more  evident  than  that  Christ  is 
here  constituting  an  Office  which  is_part  of  the  very 
constitution  of  His  Church,  the  necessary  condition 
of  Its  stability,  and  of  Its  strength,  and  of  Its  Jimtj;  ? 
The  Rock  which ,j.s-Iq_  sustain  the  edifice  as_the 
foij^ation  upon  which  Christ  builds  must  be  essen- 
iTal  to  the  whole  construction.  The  Ruler  who  has 
the  Keys  must  be  indispensable  to  the  whole  king- 
dom. The  Shepherd  who  is  to  govern  and  feed  the 
whole  flock"  oFXhrist  cannot  be  absent  from  that 
flock,  if  Ik  he  really' His.  Does  no^all  this  imply 
universal  jurisdiction^  and  a jurisdiction  which 
Christ  Himself  has  given,  and  which  is  therefore 
not  an  ecclesiastical  development,  but  a Divine  insti- 
tution? Is  “ the  teaching  of  Scripture  plainly 
inconsistent  with  the  truth  of  such  a doctrine  ” ? 
And  do  these  texts  “ each  and  all  fail  to  declare,  or 
even  to  allude  to,  any  such  doctrine,”  as  Dr.  Oxenham 
asserts  that  they  do? 

Secondly.  ‘AYhat  is  needed  is  evidence  to  prove 
that  S.  Peter  was  on  a wholly  different  footing  from 
all  the  other  Apostles,-^as  the  Pope,  in  the  right  of 
heritage,  claims  to  be  on  a^whl^ly  diflerent  footing 
from  alUbther  Bishops.”  So  writes  Dr.  Oxenham 
on  page' 24  of  his  book.  Is  not  that  evidence  already 


14 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


clearly  put  before  us  in  the  texts  above  quoted? 
P_or  on  wbich  of  tke  Apostles  did  our  Lord  conf^eJ^  in 
this  most  special  way,  the  office  and  powers  of  the 

Eock,  of  the  Euler,  of  the  Shepherd? ^To  S.  Peter 

alone  and  separately  many  things  were  given; 
whilst  the  other  Apostles  received  nothing,  without 
him.i  Qj^g  alone  can  exefcise’^the  power  which  he 
received;  their  powers  can  be  exercised  by  many. 
Their  powers  do  not  include  his;  but  his  powers 
include  theirs.  The  Church  was  “ built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
being  the  chief  corner-stone,”  to  use  S.  Paul’s 
words  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.^  Bui  amongst 
the  Apostles,  one  is  chosen  to  whom  special  preroga- 
tives are  given.  T^e^*  Church  is  built  upon  the 
Apostles,  but  upon  the  Apostles  as  Christ  ranhed 
^Aem,Jwifh  their  Prince  at  their  hesuJi  who  is  endowed 
by  Him  with  special  prerogatives.  Accordingly 
S.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Apostles  collectively,  and 
he  couples  them  with  the  Prophets,  as  author- 
ised teachers  of  Divine  truth.  In  doing  so,  S.  Paul 
does  not  exclude  but  includes  Peter,  with  whatever 
powers  Christ  gave  him. 

All  the  Apostles  received  a universal  mission 
directly  from  Christ,  nor  had  any  one  of  them  to 
apply  to  Peter  for  a mandate  or  for  authority,  though 

^ The  power  of  binding  and  loosing  was  given  to  all  the  Apostles, 
including  Peter,  but  to  Peter  alone  and  separately  the  power  was 
especially  given  with  the  keys.  See  Appendix,  Origen. 


THE  SUPREMACY 


15 


their  authority  was  hound  up  with,  and  dependent 
upon  his  own  special  supremacy.  Dr.  Oxenham 
is  not  aware  of  this,  it  would  seem,  or  that  this  is 
the  teaching  of  “ modern  Eomanists  ” ; and  he  is 
strangely  led  to  argue  off  the  point  by  quoting  S. 
Paul’s  words  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus:  “Feed  the 
Church  of  God  which  He  hath  purchased  with  His 
own  blood,”^  and  the  words  of  S.  Peter,  who  exhorts 
his  fellow-elders  to  “ feed  the  flock  of  God,”^  for  the 
Pope  to-day  exhorts  Bishops  to  feed  the  Church  of 
God,  namely,  that  portion  of  the  Church  which  is 
committed  to  their  care,  but  not  independently  of 
him  nor  of  his  own  office  over  the  whole  flock.  And, 
thirdly,  there  is  a difference,  a great  difference,  be- 
tween individual  Apostles  and  individual  Bishops, 
though,  as  regards  mission  and  authority,  there  is 
no  difference  between  the  Apostles,  taken  collectively, 
and  the  body  of  the  Catholic  Episcopate.  per- 

sonal prerogatives  of  the  Apostles,  considered  indi- 
vidually^  j;eased  necessarily  with  their  mortal  career, 
because  they  were  personal.  But^The"  prerogatives 
of  TheYEpbitoIic  O-ffice^dn  Peter  could  not_cease  with 
his  life,  b^ause -that  Apostolic  Office  in  Mm  was  not 
merely  personal,  but  was  established  by  Christ  as  an 
essential  and  necessarily  enduring  element  in  the 
very  constitution  of  the  Church.  _ Hence  that  special 
Office  must  last  as  long  as  the  Church  herself  remains, 
namely,  to  the  end  of  time.  The  body  of  the  Ca,^o- 


^ Acts  XX.  28. 


2 1 Peter  v.  2. 


16 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


lie  Bishops,  that  is  to  say,  the  Catholic  Episcopate, 
succeeds  to ~tbe- Collng.e^-4^the^pc^tIes^  aiid'is  there- 
fore su^eaie”ahcr  intallible7Jht_the  OatE^c^p^isco- 
pate  includes  the  Bishop  who  is  pre-eminently  the 
Bishop  of  Christ V”’fold7~3nst'~a§""tEe^^^llege^6P'the 
Apostles~ihcTuded~tEe''Trince~7f~ the  Apostle^' jyith 
eaS  and  all  of  his  own  personal' prerogatives  and 

p(^e^ " “ 

"TThe  ApostoljiL_Qihce  therefore  remains  in  the 
Church,  in  the  person  of  S7  Peter's  suerressttr-,  and  in 
the  Catholic  Episcopate  when  united  to  its  Divinely 
constituted  Head,  the  Bock  M the  whole  edmce]~”for 
withouPhinTthere  can  '^e  no^C^hplic ^E^^opale’ahd 
no  succession  from,  the  Ajiostlesj^jaccording  to  the 
minid  of  Christ.  And  thus  it  is  uhr'c^r^ct  to 
say,  as  Dr.  Oxenham  says,  that  All  Bishops  alike 
are  successors  of  S.  Peter  as  an  Aj^ostle”^ 

Nor,  a iie_  the  Bishops  mere  delegates  of  the  Homan 
Pohtih.  This  idea  is  expressly  repudiated  and 
condemned  by  the  Church.  The  Bishops  have  power 
and  jurisdiction  in  their  own  right,  for  “ the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  placed  ” them  “jtQ  rule. (feed)  the  Church 
of^God,"2  8^d' accordingly  the  Pope,  the  Chief  Bishop, 
addresses  them  as  his^jlvenerable  brethren.”  But 
thfe-actual  ^^cisje-_Qf  that  power  and~jufTsdiction 
which  ihe  Bishops  hold  from  GodHs,  by_the  will  of 
(rod,  united  with,  andMependentHpon,  the  Apostolic 
Offich,H;ehtre^d^andHvmgTh  theTRocE.  thej^^ Euler, 


1 Page  13. 


^ Acts  XX.  28. 


INFALLIBILITY 


17 


the  Chief  Shepherd  of  the  whole  flock.  Hence,  he 
it  is  wto  determines  the  particular  portion  of  the 
whole  flock  OYer  which  each  Hishop-TS'^tcTex^cise  the 
powers  wIrrcirKeTias  fronT  fheTTnly  (Ihoatj  hecauae, 
unlike  the  individual  ApoddeBT-thajndividual  Bishop 
has  not  received  from  God^un  iversal  mi§sion-Th  the 
"in^ividimLA-poslfes,  by  their 
personal  gift  of  uniYersM~'gns^n.  coul^  no£jie  in- 
d^endent  from  l.liAir  Hwinely-constitured  Head  and 
PrmceT  A remnapi^of"Slh^rin^^pteTnavn^  found 
i^SEeAnglican  Church  by  law  Established,  lii' which 
the  Crown,'  holding  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  com- 
munity, names  the  Bishop  in  each  diocese,  and  there- 
fore determines  the  limits  within  which  he  is  to 
exercise  his  powers.  The  Crown  has  been  substituted 
for  the  successor  of  S.  Peter. 


2 — Infallibility 

The  doctrine  of  the  Infallibility  of  S.  Peter  and  of 
his  successors  consists  in  this,  and  in  this  only,  that 
by  the,. special  assistance^  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Who, 
according -to  our  Lord’s  promTse7Ts'^ith  th^  Chufcli 
hnto  the  end  of  timp,  the  succes^s  of  S.  Peter  inviol- 
ably keep  and  faithfully  expound  the  revelation  or 
deposit  of  faith  delivered  Through  the  Apostles. 
Hence,  that,  when,  in  the  exercise  of  his  Appsfolic 
Office,  the  successor  of  Peter  speaks  aTthe  Chief  Shep- 
herd of  the  whole  flock,  and  expressly  declares  by 

B — — 


18 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


what  is  called  a definition,  which  he  makes  known 
as  such,  that  a doctrine  is  a revealed  doctrin^nd  part 
ofPbZdnposH'df^toPMsyin^^rfh,  thence, wOTnot 
and^uDDlIainS:o  errojc.  We  speakUfit  as  a defini- 
tion oiAoctrine  regarding  FAITH  OR  MORALSj,  because 
the  ChristiaiL  Faith—Ls^  not  jjierely  a_japeculative  doc- 
triae,';^^  system  of  philosophy,  but  also,  and  pre- 
eminently, .a  practical  one,,  and  it jmu^t  therefore  ex- 
tend to  deternitae  what  is  a sin  and  what  is  not  a sin, 
that  is  to  say,  what  is-conlrary  to  God’s  Command- 
nmnts  and  what  is  in  conformity  with  those  Com- 
mandments. _ And  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  term 
MORALS.  It  is  obvious,  then,  that  in  all  cases'll  is  a 
question  of  doctrine : either  of  doctrine  concerning 
Christian  belief  for  the  Christian  mind,  or  oTdoctrine 
concerning  the  Christian  observance  of  God’s  Com- 
mandments^ ^ 

Hence  Dr.  Oxenham  may  learn,  that  by  Infalli- 
bility w^  do-not_m^n  “ impeccabiljtyLlLnr-  siolessness 
in  the  personal  S.  Peter  or  of  his  successors,  who  are 
accountable  to  God  for  their  own  consciences  and 
their  own  lives  like  every  other  human  being:  that 
igeldo_not  mean  that  the  Eoman  Pontifi-receives 


special  revelations  irom-  heaven,  or  that  by  a revela- 
tioiTbP  the  Holy  Spint  he  may  invent  or  teach  new 
doctrines  not  contained  in  :&e  deposit  ()f_  Faith, 
though,  when  occasion  offers,  and  especially  in  times 
oLcdhftict^  he  may  define  a point  which  all  have  not 
^leafly^ecognised  in  that  Faith,  or  which  some  may 
be  striving  to  put  out  of  view.  Hor  do  we  mean  that 


INFALLIBILITY 


19 


every  utterance  that  proceeds  from  the  Pope’s  mouth, 
or  from  the  Pope’s  pen,  is  infallible  because  it  is  his. 
Great  as  our  filial  duty  of  reverence  is  towards  what- 
ever he  may  say,  great  as  our  duty  of  obedience  must 
*be  to  the  guidance  of  the  Chief  Shepherd,  we  do  not 
bold  that  every  word  of  his  is  infallible,  or  that  he 
Tttust“aiwavs  be  risrht.^  Much  less  do  we  dream  of 


leaching^atLe  is  infallible,  or  in  any  degree  superior 
to  other  men,  wLen  he  speaks  on  matters  that  are 
* scientific,  or  historical,  politicaL  or  that  he  may  not 
make  mistakes  of  judgment  in  dealing  with  contem- 
porary events,  with  men  and  things . 

Now,  upon  what  grounds  do  we  rest  our  belief  in 
this  prerogative  of  infallibility  thus  explained  ? The 
answer  is : Upon  the  same  grounds  as  we  assert  our 
belief  in  the  supremacy.  The  infallibility  follows 
necessarily  from  the  supremffi^T~^~-Foy;-  what  is  the 
mission  of  the  Church?  What  is  the  Church 
in  the  world  for? — Te-Teach  the  Divinely  revealed 
truth  and  whatsoever  Christ  has  taught.  But 


how  could  . the- 
tuted  bj^  Christ 
a^_the_^^round 


-Office  of  S. 

the  _Eock 

of  stability 


as 


Peter  be.  insti- 
of  that  Church, 
in  the  Divine 


e difice,_if_fchi^Tiock''^gTiii1&Ohake^  split_up^hy 
errors  in  matters  of  Faith^  ^ow  could  the^  edifice 
ptand  if  that  were  so?  To  admit  such  a possibility  is 
tantamount  to  saying  that  our  Lord’s  promise  can  fail, 
and  that  “ the  gates  (powers)  of  hell,”  of  the  father  of 
jics,  shall  ‘‘  prevaiT”~agaInst  the  Church.  The  Ruler 
^ the  Ringdom  of  heaven  would  no  lohgw  hold  the 


20 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


Keys  of  that  if  h.e  could  opeBjQie  gateways 

of  error  anj  close  the  door  of  revealed  truth.  The 
ShepherLSoultl  not  be  feeding  the  she^p  and  the 
lagabs  with  the  food  of  truth,  if  be  could  slay  tbeni 
poison  of  erroneous  doctrines. 

I)r.  UxenKam  must  also  learn,  together  with  other 
Protestants,  that  we  hold  all  the  Apostles  ty)  have  been 
i^allible,  anJ'that  they  had  not  to  gather  from  S. 
Peter  the  truth  which  they  had  been^enPto  teachT. 
Blit  this  infallibility  of  theirs  was  theiF personal  pre- 
ro^tive,  because  it~^wa^  not  given  in  any  other 
form,_  and  it  ceased_^dth  their  peiidhal  missi'^. 

: Whereas  the  infallibility  of  S.  Peter,  because  it  was 
not  only  personal,  but  also  part  of  the  Office  whicETls 
I essential  to  the  construction  of  the  Ohnrch,  as  the 
' Rock  is  essential  to  the  edifice  whicEl?  built  np^  it, 
miiiP  remaifiTln  that  Office  as^  long  aTs  the  Church 
abides _"T^uTls  it  admiSble  that  the  supremacyHiid 
infallibility  of  i:j.  Peter  depend  upon  the  acceptance 
T^r  approval  of  those  who  were  committed  to  his  care 

tobe  sustained,  tolbe  goYerned,  and  to  be  fed.~  For 

- the  Church  was  not  establish^  after  the  manner  of  a 
Parliament,  and  if  the  Rock,  the  Ruler^  anffi  the 
Shepherd  were  to  be  dependent  upon  the  votes  or  the 
approval  of  those  who  are  committed  to  his  care,^  the 
whole  principle  and  constitution  of  the  Church  estab- 
lished by  Christ  would  be  overturned,  and  the  Rock 

^ Dr.  Oxenham  tells  us  on  page  58  of  his  book  that  the  judgment 
of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  afterwards  endorsed  by  universal 
acceptance. 


INFALLIBILITY 


21 


would  rest  on  the  edifice,  not  the  edifice  upon  the 
Rock ; the  Keys  would  he  in  the  hands  of  the  subjects, 
and  not  under  the  control  of  the  Ruler;  the  flock 
would  feed  the  Shepherd,  instead  of  the  Shepherd 
feeding  the  flock.  Rightly  then,  and  consistently 
with  the  texts  above  mentioned,  may  the  text  of  S. 
Luke  be  quoted  to  further  emphasise  the  doctrine  of 
the  supremacy  and  infallibility  of  S.  Peter,  and  it  is 
thus  quoted  by  many  of  the  Fathers,  by  the  Vatican 
Council,  by  the  present  Pope,  and  by  not  a few  of  our 
theologians : “ And  thou  being  once  converted,  con- 
firm thy  brethren.” 

Let  me  conclude  this  paragraph  on  the  infallibility 
of  S.  Peter  and  of  his  successors,  by  recalling  an  argu- 
ment in  its  support,  which  has  been  so  ably  suggested 
by  Count  J.  de  Maistre.^  Once  you  admit  the  supre- 
macy,  the  infallibility  folRiws  as  a necessary  conse-  \ 
quehce.  We  have  here  two  different  terms  which  :\ 
practically  signify  the  same  thing.  For  surely  in  ^ ' 
real  life,  and  as  far  as  the  practical  cdhffuct  of  men  is  , ; 
"Fbhcer'hedrfo  Fe  free  from  error  and  to  be  above  all 
possible  accusation  of  error,  come  practically  to  one 
and  the  same  thing.  Suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
~nrent;~Lhar^  Divine  promise  had  been  made  to  S. 
Peter  and  to  those  who  succeed  him  as  the  Rock  of 
the  Church,  the  Pope  would  nevertheless  be  practically 
infallible,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  he  would  have 
to  be  considered  so,  as  being  the  ultimate  tribunal 


^Du  Pape,  BK.  I.  c.  1,  p.  21. 


22 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


wKicli  admits  of  no  appeal.  Let  the  reader  reflect, 
and  he  will  realise  that  in  every  social  organisation 
or  commonwealth,  under  any  form  of  government,  the 
Judgment  of  a court  that  admits  of  no  further  appeal 
is,  and  must  he  assumed  to  he.  Just  and  true.  It  is 
because  that  court  is  supposed  to  he  unerring  that  it 
admits  of  no  further  appeal,  though,  of  course,  not 
having  any  Divine  assurance,  that  court  in  reality 
may  err.  Had  anyone  the  right  to  say  that  the  Pope, 
who,  hy  virtue  of  his  supremacy,  is  the  ultimate  court 
of  appeal  in  matters  of  faith,  is  mistaken, 
that  person  would  also  have  the  right  to  dis- 
obey him,  and  this  right  to  disobey  him 

.would  put  an  end  to  the  supremacy.  For, 

as  we  have  said,  why  does  a supreme  court  admit  of  no 
appeal  if  not  on  the  assumption,  which  is  practically 
enforced,  that  its  judgment  is  based  upon  truth,  and 
therefore  Just  ? Hence  it  is  that  practical  infallibility 
is  always  asserted  as  a necessity  for  the  government  of 
every  organised  society.  Sy.ely,  then,  it  must  be 
A obvious  that  in  the  Church,  inrne  Kingdom  of  Christ 
oireailhr  whefe~The  ^^e stion  is  not  o^  of  mere  out- 
\ ward  compliance  with  the  law, j)r  of  practical  govem- 
ment^  butone  of  bihding^ur  consciences,  of  telling  us 
what  God  wishes  us  to  believe  or  not  believe,  surely, 
^ sa-y  if  must  be_gbvious  th^  infallibility  should  exist 
injhe  Office  of  the  su^em^udge,  and  an  infallibilitx. 
which  is  not  based  only,  upon,a.^cessary  assumption 
for  practical  purposes,  _ but  upon  an  unassailable  and 
divinely  jaatablished  principle  beyond  the  possibility 


EOME 


23 


of  mistake.  Agam,  if  Clmst  ^of  f aith^ 

fo"aB3.e  in  His  Ckurck,^and_He  certainly  did^  He  must 
have  provided  the  proper  means  of  preserving  that 
unity  under  ordinary  and  habitual  circumstances.  A 
general  Council  of  the  whole  Episcopate,  especially 
as  the  Church  extends  her  frontiers,  can  only  he  an 
intermittent  and  extraordinary  means  of  infallibly 
proclaiming  the  truth.  We  have  but  to  recall  the 
inevitable  difficulties  which  have  invariably  attended 
the  meetings  of  every  Oecumenical  Council  in  orde^^s^ 
to  realise  this.  If  the  personal  infallibility  of  the 
Chief  Shepherd  is  not.  admitted,  we  must  conclude  | 
that  Christ  has  willed  the  unity  of  His  Church  and  yet  | 
left  her  without  the  means  of  practically  maintaining  i 
and  preserving  it. 


3 — The  Bishops  of  Rome 

We  have  dealt  with  two  of  the  three  questions  which 
Dr.  Oxenham  sets  himself  to  answer  on  page  12  of  his 
book.  We  shall  have  to  deal  with  them  again.  But 
we  must  now  turn  to  the  third  question  which.  Dr. 
Oxenham  tells  us,  involves  the  double  inquiry : (1) 
Was  it  as  Bishop  of  Rome  that  S.  Peter  held.  . . 

his  prerogatives  of  supremacy  and  infallibility  ? 
Why  are  we  to  suppose  that  these  two  ‘ excellent 
gifts  ’ were  given  to  him  as  Bishop  of  Home,  and  not 
as  an  Apostle?  But  if  S.  Peter  did  not  hold  these 
prerogatives  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  why  should  Bishops 


24 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


of  Rome,  any  more  than  any  other  Bishops,  succeed 
to  those  prerogatives?  All  Bishops  alike  are  suc- 
cessors of  S.  Peter  as  an  Afostle.  (2)  And  secondly 
it  must  be  inquired.  Was  S.  Peter  ever  Bishop  of 
RomeP’^i 

As  regards  the  first  question,  I should  like  to  point 
out  that  Dr.  Oxenham  has  put  it  into  a strange  form, 
so  strange  that  one  almost  feels  inclined  to  ask  him 
whether  he  is  aware  that  it  was  in  Cesarea  Philippi, 
and  by  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  that  our  Lord  spoke  to 
Peter,  years  before  there  was  any  question  of  his  com- 
ing to  Rome  or  anywhere  else,  and  that  it  was  in 
Palestine,  and  not  in  Italy,  that  our  Lord  lived  and 
conferred  powers  and  prerogatives  upon  his  Apostles. 
Of  course.  Dr.  Oxenham  is  aware  of  this.  Then  why 
put  such  a question?  The  answer  to  it,  when  it  is 
thus  worded,  is  very  obvious.  Most  certainly  it  was 
as  an  apostle  that  S.  Peter  received  his  excellent  gifts, 
yet  not  as  one  of  the  other  Apostles,  but  as  their 
Prince.  We  have  already  sufficiently  explained  this, 
as  the  reader  may  see.  Dr.  Oxenham  appears  to 
attach  more  importance  to  the  locality  than  to  the 
office.  The  successor  of  S.  Peter  in  his  Apostolic  and 
Episcopal  office,  with  whatever  special  and  essential 
prerogatives  were  attached  to  that  office,  can  be  no 
other  than  the  Bishop  who  succeeded  him  in  the  See 
which  he  occupied  at  the  time  of  his  death.  Had  S. 
Peter  died  when  he  was  at  Antioch,  the  Bishops  of 


1 Pages  12-13. 


EOME 


25 


Antioch,  and  not  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  would  have 
heen  his  successors,  and  Dr.  Oxenham  might  have 
called  us  “ Antiochists  ” instead  of  Romanists.” 

When  Dr.  Oxenham  asks  : ‘‘  Why  are  we  to  suppose 
that  these  two  excellent  gifts  were  given  to  him 
(Peter)  as  Bishop  of  Rome  and  not  as  an  Apostle  ?” — 
the  answer  is  a very  simple  one.  We  are  not  to  sup- 
pose any  such  thing,  because  S.  Peter  received  those 
gifts  long  before  he  ever  set  foot  in  Rome,  and  as 
Prince  of  the  Apostles.  But  he  left  them  to  his  suc- 
cessors as  Bishops  of  Rome,  because  it  was  in  Rome 
that  he  died,  and  that  he  left  his  office,  his  episcopate, 
and  its  prerogatives. 

There  remains  then  only  the  second  point  of  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  double  inquiry,  which  he  expresses  as 
follows: — ‘‘Was  S.  Peter  ever  Bishop  of  Rome? 
For,  if  not,  the  Popes,  as  Bishoijs  of  Rome,  are  not  his 
successors  at  all  !”^  I presume  that  Dr.  Oxenham 
does  not  intend  to  question  the  historical  fact  of  the 
presence  and  death  of  S.  Peter  in  Rome,  a fact  which 
all  scholars,  Catholic  and  non-Catholic,  admit  to-day 
as  unquestionable.  I need  only  remind  Dr.  Oxenham 
that  Lightfoot,  Ellicott,  Farrar,  Westcott,  and  Gore, 
Wieseler,  Harnack,  Hilgenfeld,  Renan,  Thiersch,  and 
Ewald  all  acknowledge  it  as  unassailable,^  and  that 
Lanciani,  speaking  as  an  archaeologist,  declares  that 
it  is  “ established  beyond  a shadow  of  doubt  by  purely 


^ Page  13. 

^ See  S.  Peter  in  Rome,  by  A.  S.  Barnes. 


26 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


monumental  evidence. Let  us  then  consider  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  question:  Was  S.  Peter  ever  Bisliop  of 
Pome?  He  replies  to  it,  but  in  a most  perfunctory 
and  superficial  manner,  on  page  108  of  his  book.  We 
shall  have  to  deal  presently  with  his  assertions  and 
arguments  put  forward  in  the  preceding  pages  in 
connection  with  the  text  of  S.  Irenaeus,  the  General 
Councils,  etc.,  where  he  endeavours  to  show  that  “ it 
was  not  the  necessities  ...  of  their  position  only  ” 
which  gave  the  Bishops  of  Rome  their  eminence  and 
distinction  among  other  Bishops,  but  that  “ it  was  a 
matter  of  express  decree,  agreed  upon  by  the  other 
Bishops.”  Here,  however,  we  are  concerned  only 
with  the  question  as  Dr.  Oxenham  puts  it:  Was  S. 
Peter  ever  Bishop  of  Rome  ? The  subject  is  interest- 
ing, and  for  the  student  of  history,  a very  extensive 
one,  which  requires  a long  and  critical  examination 
of  evidence.  Many  modern  scholars  have  discussed 
it  fully,  and  when  Dr.  Oxenham  consents  to  take 
notice  of,  and  to  discuss,  the  existing  documents  and 
to  reply  to  the  powerful  arguments  brought  forward 
by  recent  research,^  then  it  will  be  time  enough  for 
me  to  reply  to  Dr.  Oxenham  on  this  point,  as  fully  as 
the  subject  deserves.  All  I need  do  here  is  to  deal 
with  what  he  writes  in  the  hope  of  convincing  his 
readers  that  S.  Peter  was  not  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 

1 Pagan  and  Christian  Rome,  p.  123. 

^Grisar  Die  Papste  des  Mittelalters. — Chapman:  Revue  Benedic- 
tine, 2 Feb.,  1895.  Duchesne:  Les  Origines  Chretiennes.  Michels: 
L’Origine  de  I’Episcopat.  Rivington  : The  Primitive  Church  and 
the  See  of  Rome. 


ROME 


27 


to  sketch,  the  main  arguments  in  support  of  the 
Catholic  and  Roman  tradition. 

1.  The  Apostles  S.  Peter  and  S.  Paul  were  the 
FOUNDERS  of  the  See  of  Rome,  and  accordingly  our 
calendar,  unlike  the  calendar  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
which  only  names  S.  Peter  on  the  feast  of  J une  29th, 
mentions  that  feast  as  the  feast  of  both  Apostles ; and 
every  Pope  issues  his  most  solemn  documents  with  a 
reference  to  this  glorious  tradition.  And  Tertullian 
(200  A.D.),  S.  Cyprian’s  master,  tells  us  that  the 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul  poured  all  doctrine  (totam 
doctrinam)  into  that  See,^  and  that  Clement,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  was  ordained  by  S.  Peter,  though  Tertullian 
by  no  means  excludes  the  fact  that  Linus  preceded 
Clement  as  bishop  of  that  see.  S.  Peter  arrived  in 
Rome  in  the  year  42  a.d.,  and  founded  and  organised 
this  Church,  ordaining  priests  and  deacons.  During 
his  temporary  absence,  the  college  of  Roman  priests, 
under  his  authority,  governed  the  community.  In 
the  year  60  a.d.  S.  Paul  came  to  Rome,  as  he  had 
promised  to  do  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  He 
was  an  Apostle,  remember,  with  universal  mission,  as 
we  have  explained  above.  But  S.  Peter,  as  the  Rock 
of  the  Church  and  first  founder,  remained  as  the  first 
head  and  Bishop  of  the  See  of  Rome.  I presume  that 
Dr.  Oxenham  would  not  attempt  to  say  that  there 
could  be  two  bishops  in  one  see,  though  it  is  quite  con- 
ceivable and  consistent  with  what  we  have  said  hither- 


^ De  Preescr.  Hseret.  32. 


28 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


to  of  the  constitution  of  the  Church  that  two  Apostles 
should  unite  in  the  founding  of  one  see,  especially 
if  it  was  to  he  the  see  of  the  Bishop  who  succeeded 
the  Apostle  and  Bishop  who  was  the  Bock  of  the 
whole  Church. 

The  historical  evidence  in  support  of  these  latter 
statements  is  chiefly  to  be  found  in  the  words  of  S. 
Clement  (90  a.d.),  in  the  words  of  S.  Irenaeus 
(140-202  A.D.),  not  to  mention  other  documents 
old  enough  to  sweep  away  a number  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s 
arguments.  In  the  earliest  and  subsequent  literature 
the  name  of  S.  Paul  is  omitted  in  connection  with  the 
“ bishopric  ” of  Borne,  though  it  is  preserved  in  con- 
nection with  the  foundation  of  that  see.  Eusebius 
(264-338),  for  instance,  indicates,  as  we  do  to-day, 
the  two  ways  in  which  those  two  great  Apostles  were 
connected  with  the  see  of  Borne.  Linus,  he  says,^ 
obtained  the  bishopric  of  the  Church  of  Borne  first 
after  Peter,”  and  Clement  held  the  third  place 
of  those  who  acted  as  bishop  after  both  Paul  and 
Peter.”2  And  in  his  Chronicle,^  Eusebius  writes: 

The  Apostle  Peter,  when  he  had  first  founded  the 
Church  of  Antioch,  sets  out  for  the  City  of  Borne,  and 
there  preaches  the  gospel,  and  stays  there  as  'prelate  of 
the  Church  for  twenty  years  . . . but  he  (Peter), 

besides  the  Church  of  Antioch,  also  first  presided  over 
that  in  Borne  until  his  death.” 


iH.E.  iii.  4.  21. 

^ ii.  150.  6 5k  avTos  fiera  rijs  ev  ’Avriox^?  eKKXrjaias  Kal  rijs  kv 

"PwiiT}  TTpuTos  irpokaTT)  kus  TeXaiJoaeios  avrov. 


ROME 


29 


2.  Dr.  Oxenham  ventures  to  assert  that  the 
Clementine  Romance,^  “ a pure  fiction,”  is  the  origin 
of  the  story  that  S.  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome.  Now, 
this  is  absolutely  contrary  to  fact:  (1)  Because 
before  the  Clementine  Romance  came  into  existence, 
we  have  the  list  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  made  out  by 
Hegesippus,  a converted  Jew,  who  came  to  Rome 
under  Eleutherius,  and  who  drew  up  that  list  from 
the  lists  already  existing,  and  from  the  tradition 
which  he  found  in  his  time.  And  again  we  have  the 
list  drawn  up  by  S.  Irenaeus  and  the  testimony  of 
Eusebius,  which  show  that  the  Clementine  Romance 
may  have  arisen  from  the  previous  tradition,  but 
could  not  have  given  rise  to  it.  (2)  Because  there 
is  the  famous  Epistle  of  S.  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
to  the  Church  in  Corinth,  an  epistle  described  by 
Irenaeus  as  “ most  powerful,”  and  by  Dr.  Lightfoot 
as  “ almost  imperious.”  In  that  epistle,  S.  Clement 
claims  divine  authority  for  his  right  to  intervene 
authoritatively  in  the  dissensions  at  Corinth,  and  of 
calling  the  riotous  faction  to  order.  They  are  to  obey, 
he  says,  the  things  written  by  us  through  the  Holy 
Spirit,”  and  “ if  any  disobey  the  things  spoken  by 
Him  through  us,  let  them  know  that  they  will  involve 


1 The  Clementine  Romance  is  made  up  of  a narrative  which 
relates  how  S.  Clement  met  his  relations  whom  he  had  lost 
(Recognitions),  of  certain  homilies,  and  of  a letter  of  S.  Clement 
to  S.  James.  Even  Dr.  Salmon,  one  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s  greatest 
authorities,  cannot  fix  the  date  of  the  Romance  earlier  than  the 
“very  end  of  the  second  century.”  (Introduction  to  N.  T.,  p.  14.) 
It  was  probably  composed  much  later  on  in  the  third  century. 


30 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


themselves  in  transgression  and  no  small  peril.” 
This  letter  was  written  during  the  lifetime  of  S. 
John  the  Apostle.  It  therefore  indicates  already  at 
that  early  date  the  position  and  authority  of  the  See 
of  Peter.  S.  Clement  claimed  the  obedience  of  the 
Corinthians.  He  claimed  it  from  Rome,  and  it  was 
given  and  order  was  restored.  The  importance  and 
authority  of  this  intervention  on  the  part  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  who  thus  asserted  his  universal  juris- 
diction, may  be  gathered  from  the  words  of  Denis, 
Bishop  of  Corinth,  who  some  seventy  years  later 
writes,  saying  that  this  letter  of  S.  Clement’s  was 
still  publicly  read  in  the  churches  of  Corinth,  on 
every  Sunday.  Nothing  of  all  this  could  be  based 
upon  the  Clementine  Romance,  but  it  is  all  remark- 
ably in  keeping  with  the  teaching  of  the  Yatican 
Council  that  by  the  appointment  of  our  Lord,  the 
Roman  Church  possesses  a superiority  of  ordinary 
power  over  all  other  Churches.”^  (3)  Because  the 
Clementine  Romance,  at  all  events  taken  as  a whole, 
is,  as  Mr.  Puller  admits,  “ un-Petrine  and  un- 
Roman.”  Dr.  Oxenham  therefore  must  explain 
how  this  fiction  which  even  places  S.  James  above  S. 
Peter  can  be  the  origin  of  Papal  claims.  (4)  Because 
it  is  most  improbable,  not  to  say  quite  impossible, 
that  men  of  the  stamp  of  Tertullian  and  S.  Cyprian 
should  have  based  their  ideas  regarding  the  See  of 
Peter  upon  a Romance.  And  S.  Cyprian  in  a well- 


^ Cap.  III.  De  vi  et  rat.  Prim.  Rom.  Pont. 


ROME 


31 


known  passage  speaks  of  the  See  of  Rome  as  “ the 
Chair  of  Peter  and  the  principal  Church  whence 
sacerdotal  unity  took  its  rise.” 

3.  Dr.  Oxenham  points  next  to  the  Isidorian 
Decretals,  as  “ the  great  foundation  for  the  exorbitant 
claims  advanced  by  the  mediaeval  Popes, and  adds 
that  “ the  edifice  of  Papal  claims  . . . has  been 

built  up  upon  this  forgery.”^  TTell,  Dr.  Oxenham 
takes  a big  leap  from  the  Clementine  Romance  to 
the  ninth  century,  and  omits  to  say  anything  of  the 
documentary  evidence  supporting  Papal  claims  dur- 
ing the  interval  of  so  many  centuries  previous  to  the 
publication  of  those  Decretals.  Perhaps  this  is  one 
of  the  important  matters  ” which  he  felt  bound  to 
pass  over. 2 Then,  why  draw  the  “ important  ” 
conclusion  which  is  not  supported  by  the  premisses  ? 
We  can  afiord,  however,  to  take  no  notice  of  this 
omission.  The  Isidorian  Decretals  were  composed 
in  Western  Prance,  not  in  Rome,  about  the  middle 
of  the  ninth  century.  And  in  reference  to  this  ques- 
tion we  could  not  do  better  than  quote  here  what 
Pather  Clarke  has  written  in  an  essay^  which  Dr. 
Oxenham  would  do  well  to  read,  and  from  which  he 
may  learn  much.  ‘^Happily,”  Pather  Clarke  writes, 
‘‘  the  Palse  Decretals  have  had  no  such  influence  on 
the  legislation  of  the  Catholic  Church.  They  have 
introduced  no  dogma,  no  law,  no  custom  that  did  not 


^ Page  109.  2 Page  110.  ^ Page  108. 

^The  False  Decretals,  by  Father  Clarke,  S.J. 


32 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


exist  previously.  They  were  never  formally  recog- 
nised by  any  of  the  Popes,  and  it  can  be  proved  with 
certainty  that  the  Holy  See  knew  nothing  of  them 
until  years  after  they  were  compiled,  much  less  had 
any  sort  of  part  in  their  compilation.  If  extracts 
from  them  occur  in  some  Papal  documents,  we  must 
remember  that  they  were  inserted  in  perfect  good 
faith,  for  the  authenticity  of  the  False  Decretals  was 
widely  credited,  and  at  last  was  taken  for  granted 
at  Home  itself.  The  False  Decretals  were  drawn  up, 
as  we  shall  see  presently,  not  in  Home,  but  in  Western 
France.  Their  compiler  was  no  member  of  the  Papal 
Court,  but  a provincial  Bishop,  or  some  one  acting 
under  his  orders  and  seeking  to  advance  his  cause. 
Though  they  go  by  the  name  of  ^ False  Decretals,’ 
yet  a great  portion  of  them  are  genuine  documents, 
and  those  which  are  forgeries  embody  the  traditional 
teaching  of  the  Popes  whose  names  are  attached  to 
them.  They  did  not  introduce  even  into  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church  anything  that  was  unknown 
before,  but  simply  sought  to  attach  the  weight  of 
Papal  or  Conciliar  authority  to  customs  which  gener- 
ally prevailed,  but  which  many  questioned  as  lacking 
any  sufficient  sanction  from  the  Holy  See.” 

I would  remark  that  for  a forgery  to  be  accepted, 
and  to  have  “ undisputed  authority  for  some  seven 
hundred  years,” ^ it  must  indeed  bear  a great  re- 
semblance to  truth,  and  reflect  ideas  that  are  pre- 


1 Dr.  Salmon.  The  Infal.  of  the  Church,  p.  451. 


THE  FATHERS 


33 


valent,  or  it  would  deceive  no  one.  And  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham  will  have  to  explain  how  the  Isidorian 
Decretals  could  be  generally  welcomed  if  they  did 
not  express  what  was  already  a well-rooted  belief. 


PART  II 

I — The  Venerable  Fathers 

CoMMEXTiXG  upon  a text  taken  from  the  writings 
of  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Dr.  Oxenham  does  not 
hesitate  to  assert  that  “ at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century,  the  modern  Roman  doctrine  of  Papal  supre- 
macy was  simply  unknown.”^  I propose  discussing 
separately  the  case  of  each  of  the  great  Fathers 
specially  quoted  by  Dr.  Oxenham.  But  without 
wearying  my  readers  here  with  endless  references 
in  order  to  show  how  this  assertion  of  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham’s  is  contrary  to  existing  evidence,  let  me  ask 
them  to  consider  his  statement  in  the  light  of  the 
texts  which  I have  gathered  together  in  an  Appendix 
to  these  pages,  and  they  will  see  that  centuries  did 
not  pass  in  the  history  of  the  Church  “ before  any 
single  person  whose  witness  has  come  down  to  us, 
ever  imagined  such  a doctrine,”^  as  Dr.  Oxenham 
assures  us  was  the  case.  “We  need  no  evidence,” 
he  writes,  “to  show  that  S.  Peter  had  the  first  place 


1 


c 


2 Page  111. 


34 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


of  Lionour,  that  he  acted  as  leader  and  spokesman 
of  the  Apostles  on  several  occasions,  that  he  took 
the  most  prominent  place  more  than  once,  that  he 
was  truly  a ^pillar’  of  the  Church,  as  also  S.  James 
and  S.  John  are  said  to  have  been.  No  evidence 
which  proves  this  is  of  the  smallest  value  in  this 
controversy,  for  all  this  is  freely  admitted.”^  It  is 
very  good  of  Dr.  Oxenham  to  admit  so  much,  though 
he  fails  to  see  that  even  in  this  admission  he  practi- 
cally informs  us  that  the  Apostles  were  all  the  same, 
only  different.  But  the  texts  which  we  have 
collected  together,  and  those  which  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  mention  in  the  course  of  our  arguments, 
clearly  show  that  the  Fathers  held  S.  Peter  to  be 
placed  by  Christ  on  a wholly  different  footing  from 
all  the  other  Apostles,  because  He  had  given  to  him 
all  that  they  had  and  something  more.  The  reader 
may  judge  for  himself. 

Nobody  needed  evidence  for  what  Dr.  Oxenham 
so  freely  grants,  and  the  Fathers  least  of  all.  Surely 
then,  it  is  strange  that  they  should  have  written  so 
much  to  prove  what  nobody  needed  evidence  to 
believe.  The  fact  is  that  the  Fathers  taught  a great 
deal  more  than  Dr.  Oxenham  admits,  and  that  they 
dwelt  upon  the  position  of  S.  Peter  and  his  office 
in  the  constitution  of  the  Church. 

We  have  already  explained  how  all  the  Apostles, 
including  Peter,  were  the  foundation  of  the  Church, 


THE  FATHERS 


35 


and  liow  in  tliat  sense  they  were  all  “ pillars/^  This 
is  freely  admitted  by  all  who  believe  in  the  special 
office  of  S.  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  the 
“pillar”  amongst  “pillars.”  One  text  from  S. 
John  Chrysostom’s  writings  should  suffice  to  open 
Dr.  Oxenham’s  eyes.  “ Why  then,”  exclaims  that 
great  Father,  “did  James  receive  the  throne  of 
Jerusalem?  This  is  my  answer — That  He  appointed 
this  man  (Peter),  not  teacher  of  that  throne,  but  of 
the  habitable  world. Mark  the  words  teacher  and 
throne  and  hahiteihle  world,  and  see  what  is  left  of 
Dr.  Oxenham’s  theory.  He  admits  that  S.  Peter  was 
the  “leader”  of  the  Apostles.  But  the  leader,  for 
what?  The  Apostles  were  leaders  and  teachers  and 
pillars.  Undoubtedly,  then,  he  who  was  the  “leader” 
of  those  leaders,  of  those  teachers,  of  those  pillars, 
had  a pre-eminent  position  as  teacher  and  pillar, 
and,  as  the  Hock  of  the  whole  edifice,  a position 
which  could  only  pass  away  with  the  Church,  and 
which  placed  him  and  those  in  his  office  on  a wholly 
different  footing  to  the  others.  Could  Dr.  Oxenham 
have  suggested  anything  more  opposed  to  the  spirit 
and  mind  of  our  Blessed  Lord  than  to  assign  to  S. 
Peter  an  empty  “ honour,”  a position  of  mere  pomp 
and  show,  a vain  title,  a name  without  authority? 
Our  Saviour  never  denied  that  a “ first  ” amongst 
His  disciples  and  in  His  kingdom  there  must  be; 


^ Horn.  88  in  Joan  : “On  tovtov  oii  Toi>  dpovov,  dXXa  r^s  oiKovfihrj 
^X^<-pOTbv7]ce  diddcTKaXov. 


36 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


He  was  emphatic  as  to  the  principle  of  authority 
and  gave  the  keys  ” to  one ; but  He  repudiated 
empty  honours,  vain  titles,  and  first  places  ” in 
the  Synagogue,  as  mere  “ places.”  He  taught  that 
the  one  who  was  to  be  first  should  act  in  all  humility, 
following  the  Master’s  example.  Who  indeed  was 
the  Master,  but  acted  as  the  servant  of  all.  He 
emphasises  this  teaching  when  he  speaks  to  Peter, 
and  just  as  He  was  telling  him  that  he  should  con- 
firm his  brethren,  as  if  to  remind  him,  more  than 
the  others,  of  the  humility  with  which  he  should 
exercise  the  great  authority  of  his  pre-eminent  posi- 
tion. And  so  is  it  that  in  conformity  with  this 
teaching,  the  successor  of  S.  Peter  calls  himself 
“ the  Servant  of  the  servants  of  God.”  But  of  mere 
supremacy  of  “ place  ” and  of  “ honour,”  our  Lord 
would  have  nothing,  and  nowhere  perhaps  is  that 
brought  out  more  clearly  than  in  the  twenty-second 
chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  S.  Luke,  where  our  Lord 
tells  us  that  He  prayed  so  especially  for  Peter. 


2 — Maldonatus  and  Bellarmine 

1.  In  his  second  letter  to  the  Church  Times, ^ Dr. 
Oxenham  irretrievably  commits  himself  to  the  state- 
ment which  he  has  made  in  his  book  regarding 
Maldonatus,  and  declares  once  again  that  this 
“ ultramontane  Jesuit  doctor  acknowledges  that  three 


^ See  Preface. 


MALDONATUS 


37 


of  the  greatest  doctors  of  antiquity — Origen,  Chry- 
sostom, and  Augustine — every  one  of  them  differs 
from  modern  Romanists,” ^ and  that  Maldonatus 
conclusively  refutes  the  Papal  assertions  as  to  the 
first  toxt  on  which  they  rely.”^  Xow,  I pointed  out 
in  my  letter  that  Dr.  Oxenham  had  suppressed  the 
evidence,  and  I will  endeavour  to  make  fhis  clear  to 
the  impartial  reader.  What  are  the  facts?  What 
does  Maldonatus  really  say  of  the  Fathers  in  con- 
nection with  the  text  of  S.  Matthew  ? 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  Maldonatus  begins  his 
commentary  with  the  words  quoted  by  Dr.  Oxenham, 
and  that  he  recalls  the  fact  that  some  of  the  Fathers, 
besides  the  literal  interpretation  which  they  give 
elsewhere,^'^  do  interpret  the  words  “ super  hano 
petram  ” to  mean  “ upon  this  faith  of  Peter,  or  upon 
this  confession  of  faith  by  Peter,  with  which  thou 
hast  acknowledged  Me  to  be  the  Son  of  Ciod.”  One 
of  S.  Augustine’s  readings  of  the  text  is  also  given 
by  Maldonatus,  and  one  of  Origen’s.  But  here  Dr. 
Oxenham  stops  short  in  his  quotation  from  Maldona- 
tus,  and  thus,  as  I have  said,  he  suppresses  the 
evidence  and  entirely  misrepresents  what  Maldonatus 
really  says  of  the  Fathers.  Let  us  see  for  ourselves. 
Dr.  Oxenham  asserts  that  Maldonatus  “ goes  on,  as 
we  might  expect,  to  argue  that  all  those  old  Fathers 
were  quite  mistaken.”^  Maldonatus  goes  on  to  do 
nothing  of  the  sort.  For,  in  the  very  next  sentence 


^ Page  26. 


2 Page  32. 


(See  Introductory. 


•*Page  26. 


38 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


fallowing  upon  the  words  quoted  by  Dr.  Oxenham, 
Maldonatus  goes  on  to  write  literally  thus : “ The 
Calvinists  have  laid  hold  of  those  interpretations 
taken  in  a sense  different  from  their  meaning,  with 
greater  eagerness  than  with  love  for  truth.  . . . 

We  shall  interpret  the  other  Fathers  a little  further 
on.”^  I am  afraid  that  in  this  instance  Maldonatus 
would  have  classed  Dr.  Oxenham  amongst  the 
Calvinists,  whom  he  immediately  proceeds  to  con- 
fute at  great  length  by  expounding  the  usual  Catholic 
and  obvious  interpretation  of  the  text.  It  is  the 
Calvinists,  not  those  old  Fathers,  who,  he  argues, 
‘‘  are  quite  mistaken,”  though  he  does  not  think  that 
the  additional  interpretations  given  by  some  of  the 
Fathers  are  easy  to  reconcile  with  the  literal  mean- 
ing of  the  words  in  S.  Matthew’s  Grospel.  And 
Maldonatus  quotes,  in  support  of  the  well-known 
reading  of  the  text,  Clement  of  Rome,  Hippolitus, 
Dyonisius,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Origen,  Epiphanius, 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  Basil,  Ambrose,  Leo,  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  Juvencus,  and  Psellus.  And  after  that 
he  immediately  writes  as  follows: — “Finally,  this 
was  the  mind  of  those  very  same  Fathers  who  are 
brought  forward  as  teaching  the  opposite.”  Mal- 
donatus refers  us,  in  support  of  this  latter  statement 
of  his,  to  the  writings  of  those  very  same  Fathers, 
and,  having  quoted  Origen,  he  names  the  other 
Fathers  whom  he  had  mentioned  before  in  the 


1 Maid,  in  loco. 


MALDONATUS 


39 


passage  translated  by  Dr.  Oxenbam.  S.  Hilary 
(lib.  6 de  Trinit.)  (in  Psal.  131)  (can.  16.  in  Matt.) 
Chrysostom,  (bom.  in  Psal.  50.)  Cyril,  (lib.  2.  in 
Joan.  c.  12.  2.)  and  Augustine,  (serm.  49.)  Mal- 
donatus  then  explains  tbe  Retractations  of  S. 
Augustine,  and  then  concludes : “ From  tbis  it  is 
clear  that  tbe  Fathers  wbo  said  tbat  ^ super  banc 
petram  ’ was  to  be  interpreted  as  meaning  ‘ upon  tbis 
faitb,’  understood  tbis  interpretation  differently  to 
heretics.  Hence  tbe  most  correct  interpretation 
seems  to  me  to  be  tbat  we  should  say  that  tbe  Church 
was  built  upon  tbe  faith  and  upon  tbe  confession  of 
Peter,  i.e.^  upon  Peter  on  account  of  bis  faith  and 
confession,  as  all  other  authors  have  held.  For  we 
commonly  make  use  of  a like  phraseology  to  indicate 
tbat  tbe  state  is  founded  upon  tbe  faith  of  one  man, 
i.e.,  upon  one  man  on  account  of  bis  faith.  In  tbe 
same  way  S.  Ambrose  (lib.  de  Resur.  fide.)  declared 
tbat  tbe  faith  of  Peter,  and  not  bis  body,  walked 
upon  tbe  waters,  because,  not  bis  body,  but  bis  faith 
made  it  possible  for  him  to  walk  upon  tbe  waters. 
Certainly,  it  is  manifest  from  the  words  of  these 

SAME  AUTHORS  (FaTHERS)  THAT  THEY  DID  NOT  WISH 
TO  DENY,  AS  HERETICS  DENY,  THAT  PeTER  WAS  THE 
FOUNDATION  OF  THE  Church.’’^  This  is  what  Mal- 
donatus  writes  regarding  tbe  Fathers  mentioned  by 
Dr.  Oxenbam,  and  I would  ask  whether,  with  tbe 
words  of  Maldonatus  before  our  eyes,  words  which 


1 Maid.  ihid. 


40 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


Dr.  Oxenliam  has  suppressed,  it  is  true  that 
“ Maldonatus  acknowledges  that  all  those  great 
of  antiquity,  and  among  them  three  of  the 
greatest — Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  Augustine — every 
one  of  them  differs  from  modern  Romanists,”^  or 
that  Maldonatus  “ conclusively  refutes  the  Papal 
assertions  as  to  the  first  text  on  which 
they  rely.”2  Maldonatus  says  just  the  opposite.  It 
is  sad  no  doubt  for  Dr.  Oxenliam  to  find  himself 
classed  hy  Maldonatus  among  heretics,  but  he  should 
not  have  suppressed  the  evidence,  and  made  out 
that  Maldonatus  acknowledges  or  refutes  that 
which  he  has  neither  acknowledged  nor  refuted.  Dr. 
Oxenham  does  not  like  the  word  “suppress;”  and 
he  would  rather  have  me  describe  his  methods 
as  “ not  reciting.”  Very  well.  That  is  certainly  a 
nice  way  of  putting  it,  and  it  is  distinctly  refreshing 
to  find  Dr.  Oxenham  preferring  nice  expressions, 
hut  the  fact  remains,  and  it  is  an  awkward  one,  that 
Maldonatus  cannot  be  quoted  as  admitting  that  those 
Fathers  “every  one  of  them  differs  from  modern 
Pomanists.”  And  Dr.  Oxenham  can  only  uphold 
that  statement  by  not  reciting  the  evidence  which 
was  so  much  to  the  point.  Like  many  other  Catholic 
theologians,  Maldonatus  rightly  argues  that,  whether 
you  interpret  “ super  hanc  petram  ” as  meaning 
“ upon  Peter  ” or  “ upon  the  faith  of  Peter,”  the 
conclusion  is  ever  one  and  the  same,  namely — that 
upon  him  did  Christ  build  the  Church. 


1 Page  26. 


2 Page  32. 


BELLARMINE 


41 


2.  Bellarmilie  is  anotlier  “ ultramoiitaue  ” writer 
witli  whose  authority  Dr.  Oxenham  endeavours  to 
holster  up  his  misrepresentation  of  the  teaching  of 
the  Fathers  upon  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter.  Bellar- 
mine,  we  are  toldd  “ can  quote  nothing  earlier  than 
the  eleventh  century,  except  the  suspicious  evidence 
of  some  Popes  in  their  own  cause,  of  whom  the 
earliest  to  speak  distinctly  is  Pope  Agatho,  a.d.  680.” 
Dr.  Oxenham  is  speaking  here  of  the  text  in  S. 
Luke,  “ Simon  ...  I have  prayed  for  thee,” 
etc.  He  resorts  in  this  instance  to  the  methods 
of  which  I have  spoken  in  my  introductory  remarks, 
and  therefore  changes  the  whole  position.  His 
point  was,  and  is,  that  all  the  venerable  Fathers  did 
not  acknowledge  the  supremacy  and  infallibility  of 
S.  Peter ; whereas  here  he  is  simply  endeavouring 
to  show  that  all  the  Fathers  did  not  agree  or  prove 
that  doctrine  solely  on  the  strength  of  the  one  text 
of  S.  Luke,  a fact  which  the  Pope  never  thought  of 
denying  in  the  Encyclical  now  under  consideration. 
Turning,  however,  to  vrhat  Dr.  Oxenham  here  says, 
I would  remark  : — 

1.  That  it  is  not  a fact  that  Bellarmine  quotes 
“ nothing  earlier  than  the  eleventh  century,  except 
the  suspicious  evidence  of  some  Popes  in  their  own 
cause,  the  earliest  of  whom  to  speak  distinctly  is 
Pope  Agatho,  a.d.  680.”  For,  Bellarmine  refers 
to  Leo  the  Great  (serm.  3.  de  anniv.  assumpt.),  and 


^ Page  33. 


42 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


Leo  the  Great  lived  two  centuries  before  Pope 
Agatbo.  Nor  can  Dr.  Oxenbam  pretend  tbat  tbis 
Pontiff,  whom  be  describes  as  a “ great  champion 
of  Papal  rights,  did  not  speak  distinctly  upon  the 
prerogatives  of  S.  Peter  and  of  bis  successors.  Not 
to  mention  other  passages  in  bis  writings,  in  the 
very  homily  quoted  by  Bellarmine,  Leo  expounds 
most  explicitly  the  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  of  S. 
Peter,  and  after  arguing  from  the  texts  of  S. 
Matthew,  be  adds  the  texts  of  S.  Luke,  as  further 
evidence,  just  as  other  Catholic  writers  usually  do. 

2.  There  is  nothing  suspicious  in  the  evidence  of 
Popes  “ in  their  own  cause.”  As  the  Rev.  Spencer 
Jones,  the  Anglican  Rector  of  Batsford,  points  out,^ 
“ Human  nature  must  be  tempted  to  magnify  its 
office ; and  it  is  natural  and  all  for  the  best  that  it 
should  have  a strong  bias  in  its  favour ; but  it  will 
at  least  say  all  that  is  to  be  said  in  its  behalf ; and 
on  the  other  hand,  where  it  is  a question  of  govern- 
ment, the  first  impulse  of  a subject  is  to  resist 
authority,  and  the  next  is  to  look  about  in  search 
for  respectable  reasons  for  doing  so.”  It  would  have 
been  impossible  for  Leo  or  any  other  Pope  to  assert 
his  authority  as  he  did,  and  enforce  it,  an  authority 
of  universal  jurisdiction,  had  not  that  authority  been 
already  known  as  legitimate  throughout  the  world. 

3.  Bellarmine  does  not  do  more  than  just  refer 
to  the  text  of  S.  Luke,  adding  that  Greek  and  Latin 


^ Page  106. 


England  and  the  Holy  See,  p.  169. 


BELLARMINE 


43 


authors  (Fathers),  have  thus  interpreted  it  as  further 
emphasising  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter.  In  the 
twenty-fifth  chapter  of  his  great  work,  De  Romano 
Pontificey  a chapter  which  is  headed,  “ Testimony 
of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  confirming  the  primacy 
of  S.  Peterf’  Bellarmine  quotes  all  the  Fathers  and 
doctors  of  antiquity.  The  passage  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Oxenham  is  but  the  eighth  short  paragraph  of  a 
chapter  in  which  Bellarmine  collects  together  a 
considerable  number  of  proofs,  as  cumulative 
evidence  of  what  he  has  already  so  fully  established, 
and  that  paragraph  is  as  follows : — “ The  8th  is  in 
Luke  xxii.,  where  the  Lord  says  Simon,  Simon 
satan,  etc.  By  which  words  the  Lord  most  clearly 
shows  that  Peter  was  to  be  the  Prince  and  Head  of 
his  brethren.  Thus  are  they  interpreted  by  Greek 
and  Latin  authors.  Theophylactus,  speaking  of  this 
passage,  says : — ‘ Because  I hold  thee  to  be  the 
Prince  of  My  disciples,  after  having  wept  over  thy 
denial,  confirm  the  others.  This  is  suitable  to  thee, 
who,  after  Me,  art  the  Pock  and  foundation  of  the 
Church.’  Leo,  in  his  third  sermon,  upon  the  anni- 
versary of  his  elevation  to  the  Pontificate,  comments 
thus : — ‘ The  faith  of  Peter  is  specially  prayed  for, 
as  though  the  condition  of  the  rest  would  be  more 
secure,  provided  the  mind  of  Peter  were  not  sub- 
dued.’ Here  the  passage  ends,  and  Bellarmine 
goes  on  to  his  9th  point.  On  the  strength  of  this 


^ Bellarmine.  De  Rom.  Pontif,  lib.  I.  cap.  20. 


44 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


short  reference,  Dr.  Oxenham  asks  ns  to  believe 
that  Bellarmiue  could  not  quote  anything  earlier 
than  the  eleventh  century,  and  his  name  is  brought 
forv/ard  by  Dr.  Oxenham  in  a book  in  which  he  has 
undertaken  to  show  that  “ all  the  venerable  Fathers” 
did  not  acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  Peter,  and 
that  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  that 
doctrine  was  “ simply  unknown.”^ 


3 — S.  Augustine’s  Retractations 

I have  given  elsewhere^  the  translation  of  the 
whole  chapter  of  S.  Augustine’s  Retractations,  to 
which  Dr.  Oxenham  attaches  so  much  importance, 
and  thus  my  readers  will  be  in  a position  to  judge 
whether  Dr.  Oxenham  can  reasonably  make  any  use 
of  it  to  strengthen  his  tottering  arguments.  “ The 
witness  of  S.  Augustine,  even  if  it  stood  alone,” 
writes  Dr.  Oxenham,  ‘‘  is  sufficient  to  prove  that 
Papal  assertions  as  to  this  text  (Matt  xvi.)  are 
false.  ...  In  this  book  he  tells  us  that  when 
he  was  young,  before  he  was  a Bishop,  in  explaining 
the  words,  ‘ On  this  Rock  I will  build  my  Church,’ 
he  had  interpreted  ' this  Rock  ’ to  mean  S.  Peter ; 
but  that  afterwards  he  had  preferred  {sic)  another 
interpretation,  and  had  in  " very  many  places  ’ in  his 
later  writings  expounded  ‘ the  Rock  ’ to  mean  Christ 
Himself ; for  Christ  was  ‘ the  Rock,’  Whom  Simon 


Page  40. 


2 Appendix. 


S.  AUGUSTINE 


45 


confessing,  as  tlie  whole  Church  confesses  Him, 
vras  called  Peter.”  And  to  this  S.  Augustine 
adds  — “ But  of  those  two  meanings,  let  the 
reader  choose  the  more  probable.”^  How,  a 
glance  at  the  full  text,  which  is  not  given 
in  its  entirety  by  Dr.  Oxenham,  shows  us : (1) 

that  S.  Augustine  does  say  in  connection  with 
the  interpretation  of  this  text,  that  he  wrote  upon 
the  subject  when  he  was  a priest  and  before  he  was 
a Bishoj).  It  is  perfectly  true  that  in  his  preface 
to  the  book  of  Petractations,  S.  Augustine  does 
allude  to  what  he  wrote  when  he  was  young,  as 
requiring  correction ; but  it  is  also  true  that  he  adds 
in  the  same  sentence  that  he  does  not  assume  even 
now  that  what  he  is  writing  will  be  without  blemish. 
(2)  He  does  not  say  that  he  'prefers  a different 
translation,  but  only  suggests  another.  (3)  He 
tells  us  that  his  great  Master  and  Teacher,  “the 
most  blessed  Ambrose,”  gives  what  Dr.  Oxenham 
would  call  the  “ Eomanist  ” interpretation,  nor  does 
S.  Augustine  reject  it.  He  simply  says  : — “ I know 
that  later  I have  very  often  explained  what  our  Lord 
said,  ‘ super  hanc  petram,’  as  meaning  upon  Him 
Whom  Peter  confessed,  saying,  ‘ Thou  art  Christ, 
Son  of  the  living  God : ’ and  thus  Peter,  named  after 
the  Pock,  typified  the  Church,  which  was  built  upon 
the  Pock  and  received  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven.  For  it  was  not  said  to  him,  Thotj  art 
‘ Petra,’  but  ‘ Thou  art  Petrus.’  The  Petra 


1 Page  28. 


46 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


was  Christ,  Whom  Simon  confessing,  as  the  whole 
Church  confesses  Him,  was  called  Petrus.  But  of 
these  two  opinions  let  the  reader  choose  the  more 
probable.”  1 

I might  retort  to  Dr.  Oxenham’s  reasoning,^  that 
if  S.  Augustine  had  rejected  the  commonly  accepted 
interpretation  given  by  his  great  teacher  S.  Ambrose, 
he  would  not  have  left  the  reader  his  choice.  Nor 
could  he  have  left  us  that  choice,  in  the  sense  in 
which  Dr.  Oxenham  takes  it,  without  leaving  us  free 
also  to  hold  a doctrine  which  Dr.  Oxenham  declares 
to  be  an  “ amazing  imposture,”^  especially  as  S. 
Augustine  reminds  us  that  Peter  received  the  Keys 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  But,  what  is  far  more 
important,  because  it  is  the  point  at  issue,  which- 
ever interpretation  S.  Augustine  may  have  preferred, 
he  does  not  retract,  or  suggest  retracting  the  doctrine 
of  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter,  a doctrine  which  he  had 
repeatedly  put  forward  in  his  writings,  like  the 
other  Fathers  before  him,  and  in  regard  to  which  he 
leaves  us  no  choice.  For  example,  he  writes:  — 
Who  can  be  ignorant  that  the  most  blessed  Peter 
is  the  first  of  the  Apostles?  and  “Of  this  Church 
Peter  the  Apostle,  on  account  of  the  primacy  of  his 
apostleship,  bore  the  character  which  represented 
the  whole  Church,”^  and  “But  I ought  rather  to 
fear  being  contumelious  towards  Peter.  For  who 


1 Retract,  lib.  I.  c.  21.  2 Pages  28-29.  ^ page  112. 

^ Tract.  50  in  Joan.  ^ Tract.  124  in  Joan. 


S.  AUGUSTINE 


47 


knows  not  tkat  that  primacy  (or  princedom)  of  the 
Apostleship  is  to  be  preferred  before  any  episcopate 
whatsoever  ? . . . the  possession  of  that  primacy 

is  declared  to  have  been  the  cause  of  Peter’s  having 
the  keys.”i 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  how  was  it,  then,  that  S. 
Augustine  could  think  that  such  an  interpretation 
of  our  Lord’s  words  was  in  any  way  possible?  The 
answer  is  given  by  S.  Augustine  himself,  because, 
as  he  says,  he  was  under  the  impression  that 
“ it  was  not  said  to  him  (Peter) : Thou  art  Petra 
(rock),  but  Thou  art  Petrus  (Peter).”  And  here 
we  have  the  whole  explanation.  S.  Augustine  did 
not  know  Hebrew  or  Syriac,  a fact  which,  it  would 
seem.  Dr.  Oxenham  has  still  to  learn.  The  original 
text  of  our  Lord’s  words  in  the  Gospel  of  S.  Matthew 
places  beyond  all  doubt  that  our  Lord  did  say  pre- 
cisely what  S.  Augustine  thought  He  had  not  said, 
viz. : Thou  art  Petra  (Kephas)  and  upon  this  Petra 
(Kephas), — using  in  both  cases  identically  the  same 
word.  Had  S.  Augustine  known  this,  it  is  obvious 
that  he  could  not  possibly  have  suggested  his  second 
reading  of  the  text,  because  the  very  reason  which 
he  gives  to  justify  it,  falls  to  the  ground.  There  is 
one  conclusion  left  standing,  however,  and  it  is  the 
conclusion  that  really  matters,  namely,  that  S. 
Augustine,  like  the  other  venerable  Fathers,  acknow- 
ledged and  taught  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter. 


1 Enarr.  in  Ps.  108. 


48 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


4 — S.  John  Chrysostom 

Few  of  tile  Fathers  have  spoken  more  explicitly 
upon  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter  than  S.  J ohn  Chry- 
sostom, and  Dr.  Oxenham  would  have  Keen  better 
advised  had  he  left  that  great  Father  of  the  Greek 
Church  alone.  Speaking  once  again  of  the  text  in 
S.  Luke  xxii.,  Dr.  Oxenham  writes : “ If  we  desire 
to  know  what  was  taught  about  this  text  by  some 
of  the  old  Fathers,  we  may  read  what  S.  Chrysostom, 
in  the  fourth  century,  taught.  He  sees  in  these 
words  of  Christ  to  Peter  no  gift  of  supremacy,  or  even 
of  superiority,  but  just  the  contrary.”^  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham refers  us  for  this  statement  of  his  to  S.  Chry- 
sostom’s 82nd  homily  on  Matt.  xxvi.  Before 
explaining  the  contents  of  that  homily,  let  us  consider 
Dr.  Oxenham’s  assertion  just  as  it  stands : S. 
Chrysostom  “ sees  in  these  words  of  Christ  to  Peter 
no  gift  of  supremacy,  or  even  of  superiority,  but 
just  the  contrary.”  Indeed!  Well,  then,  will  Dr. 
Oxenham  kindly  read  S.  Chrysostom’s  third  homily 
upon  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ? He  will  find  matter 
for  reflection  there,  in  the  following  passage  : “ And 
in  those  days,  Peter,  rising  up  in  iJe  midst  of  the 
disciples,  said.  Both  as  being  ardent,  and  as  having 
had  entrusted  to  him  by  Christ  the  flock;  as  the 
first  of  the  choir,  he  always  is  the  first  to  begin  the 


^ Page  33. 


S.  CHRYSOSTOM 


49 


discourse.  Lo ! there  were  a hundred  and  twenty ; 
and  he  asks  for  one  out  of  the  whole  multitude. 
Justly;  he  has  the  first  authority  in  the  matter, 
as  having  had  all  entrusted  to  him.  Foil  to  him 
Cheist  said,  And  thou  being  conveeted,  confiem 
THY  BEETHEEN.’’  I fancy  that  the  reader  will  con- 
clude with  me  that  Dr.  Oxenham’s  statement  is 
plainly  false,  and  that  S.  Chrysostom  does  see  in 
those  very  words  of  Christ  to  Peter  a gift  of  supremacy, 
or  of  superiority,  and  not  just  the  contrary. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  82nd  homily,  from  which  Dr. 
Oxenham  endeavours  to  draw  an  argument  against 
Papal  claims.  In  that  homily  S.  Chrysostom  com- 
ments upon  the  events  which  immediately  preceded 
our  Lord’s  Passion,  and  expounds  various  points 
of  Christian  doctrine,  in  the  course  of  which  commen- 
tary, when  he  mentions  Peter,  he  calls  him  the 
“ head  ” or  “ summit  ” of  the  Apostles.  He  then 
dwells  at  length  upon  Peter’s  pride  and  arrogance 
in  contradicting  our  Blessed  Lord,  and  is  all  intent 
upon  teaching  the  necessity  of  humility,  just  as  a 
‘‘  modern  Papalist  ” would  do,  and  does  constantly 
to-day,  without  considering  such  a commentary 
‘‘  fatal  to  modern  Papal  claims.”^  Far  from  ques- 
tioning for  a moment  the  supremacy  and  superior 
position  of  S.  Peter,  which  he  so  repeatedly  brings 
forward,  far  from  seeing  “ just  the  contrary  ” in 
these  words  of  our  Lord,  S.  Chrysostom  proceeds  to 


^ Page  34. 
D 


50 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


give,  in  the  very  next  sentence  that  follows  upon  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  quotation,^  this  most  explicit  teaching: 
‘‘  Why  did  He  (Christ)  not  say,  I have  forgiven,  hut 
rather,  I have  prayed?  Because  He  speaks  more 
humbly  as  He  is  about  to  go  to  His  Passion,  in  order 
to  manifest  His  Humanity.  For  He  Who  founded 
and  safeguarded  the  Church  upon  his  (Peter’s)  con- 
fession, so  that  no  danger,  nor  death  itself  could  over- 
come him ; Who  had  given  to  him  (Peter)  the  Keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  bestowed  upon  him 
such  great  power,  and  yet  needed  not  to  pray  for  all 
these  things — how  much  less  should  He  have  needed 
to  pray  in  this  instance?  For,  indeed,  with  the 
greatest  authority  did  He  say,  I will  build  my  Church 
[upon  thee~\,  and  I will  give  to  thee  the  Keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  What  necessity,  then,  was  there 
of  prayer  in  order  to  sustain  the  troubled  soul  of  one 
man?  For  the  reason  which  we  have  already  ex- 

i“Hear,”  writes  S.  Chrysostom,  “what  He  saith:  ‘I  have 
prayed  for  thee  that  thy  faith  fail  not.  ’ For  this  He  said,  sharply 
reproving  him,  and  showing  that  his  fall  was  more  grievous  than 
that  of  the  rest,  and  needed  more  help.  For  the  matters  of  blame 
were  two — both  that  he  contradicted  his  Lord  and  that  he  set 
himself  before  the  others ; and  a third  fault,  namely,  that  he 
attributed  all  to  himself.  To  cure  these  things,  the  Lord  suffered 
the  fall  to  take  place;  and  for  this  cause  also,  turning  from  the 
others,  Christ  addresses  Himself  earnestly  to  Peter,  saying,  ‘Simon! 
Simon  1 Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as 
wheat  ’ — that  is,  that  he  may  trouble,  confound,  and  tempt  you — 
‘ but  I have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not.’  And  why,  if 
Satan  desired  all,  did  He  not  say  concerning  all,  ‘I  have  prayed 
for  you ! ’ Is  it  not  quite  plain  that  it  is  this,  which  I have  men- 
tioned before,  that  it  is  as  reproving  him,  and  showing  that  his  fall 
was  more  grievous  than  that  of  the  rest,  that  Christ  directs  His 
words  to  him.”  (Quotation  by  Dr.  Oxenham,  p.  34.) 


S.  CHRYSOSTOM 


51 


plained,  and  on  account  of  tlie  weakness  of  His 
disciples,  wko  as  yet  kad  not  an  entirely  rigkt 
estimation  of  Him.”  And  then,  after  speaking  once 
more  of  S.  Peter’s  pride,  S.  Chrysostom  concludes 
with  a lesson  on  humility,  and  says : “ For  this 
reason  did  He  permit  the  Chief  of  His  Apostles  to 
fall,  rendering  him  more  humble,  and  leading  him 
to  greater  love.  For  he  is  more  loved.  He  said,  to 
whom  more  is  forgiven.”^  These  words  of  S.  Chry- 
sostom are  fatal  to  Dr.  Oxenham’s  argument,  and  he 
has  “ not  recited  ” them,  though  they  follow  im- 
mediately upon  the  passage  which  he  has  quoted. 
Yes,  Dr.  Oxenham  would  have  done  better  to  leave 
S.  Chrysostom  alone.  That  great  Father  has  spoken 
too  emphatically  to  admit  of  his  teaching  being 
questioned.  In  his  Homilies  on  Penance,  he  writes  : 
“ Peter  himself,  the  Chief  of  the  Apostles,  the  first 
in  the  Church,  the  friend  of  Christ  . . . this 

very  Peter; — and  when  I name  Peter,  I name  that 
unbroken  rock,  that  firm  foundation,  the  great 
Apostle,  the  first  of  the  disciples. “ And  yet  after 
so  great  an  evil  [the  denial].  He  again  raised  him 
to  his  former  honour,  and  entrusted  to  His  hand  the 
primacy  over  the  universal  Church.”^  And  again, 
not  to  quote  other  passages,^  in  his  homily  on  the 
parable  of  the  Talents,  S.  Chrysostom  calls  S.  Peter 
the  leader  of  the  choir  of  the  Apostles,  the  mouth 


^ Horn.  82,  on  S.  Matt.  xxvi.  ^ Horn.  3,  de  Poen. 
* Horn.  5,  de  Poen.  ^ See  my  quotation  on  p.  35. 


52 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


of  tlie  disciples,  tlie  pillar  of  tlie  Churcli,  tlie  but- 
tress of  tbe  faith,  the  foundation  of  the  confession, 
the  fisherman  of  the  universe.”  May  we  not  name 
S.  Chrysostom,  therefore,  as  one  of  the  Fathers  who 
taught  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter? 

Even  in  another  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Oxenham, 
S.  Chrysostom’s  words  are  significant  enough,  though 
Dr.  Oxenham  endeavours  to  make  him  speak  only 
of  a first  “place,”  forgetting  that  the  Greek  word 
Trpoo-raa-la  is  derived  from  TipoaraTris  (he  who  presides) 
and  TTpoLo-Tapai  (to  preside,  to  govern),  and  is  generally 
translated  by  the  words  “ presidency,”  “ direction,” 
“ government.”  , 


5 — S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 

Little  need  be  said  here  of  the  mind  and  teaching 
of  this  Father  of  the  Church,  with  whose  great  name 
Dr.  Oxenham  strives  to  dazzle  the  unwary  reader, 
for  Dr.  Oxenham  gives  his  own  case  away  in  the 
very  text  which  he  quotes,  though  he  does  his  best 
to  force  us  to  adopt  his  much-desired  conclusion. 
“ If  any  one  asks  for  what  cause  Christ  asked  Simon 
only,  though  the  other  disciples  were  present,  and 
what  he  means  by  ‘ Feed  My  lambs  ’ and  the  like 
we  answer  that  S.  Peter,  with  the  other  disciples, 
had  been  already  chosen  to  the  Apostleship;  but 
because  meanwhile  Peter  had  fallen  . . . He 

now  heals  him  that  was  sick,  and  exacts  a threefold 
confession  in  place  of  his  triple  denial,  contrasting 


S.  CYEIL 


53 


the  former  with  the  latter,  and  compensating  the 
fault  with  the  correction.  For,  from  what  our  Lord 
says,  ‘ Feed  My  lambs,’  a renewal  of  the  Apos- 
tolate  already  delivered  to  him  is  considered  to  have 
been  made,  which  presently  absolves  the  disgrace 
of  his  sin,  and  blots  out  the  perplexity  of  his  human 
infirmity.” 

Let  us  accept  this  translation  as  it  is  given  by 
Dr.  Oxenham.  It  is  false  to  say  that  S.  Cyril  does 
not  teach  that  our  Lord  spoke  these  words 
to  S.  Peter  alone,  not  as  conferring  on  him 
any  sort  of  pre  - eminence  over  others.”^  This 
is  Dr.  Oxenham’s  opinion,  not  the  teaching  of 
S.  Cyril.  Dead  over  the  text  and  see  how 
S.  Cyril  tells  us  that  Peter  was  reinstated  by  a 

renewal  of  the  Apostolate.”  Exactly  so ; but  not 
reinstated  by  halves,  or  with  a diminution  of  what 
he  had  already  been  promised,  but  reinstated  in  the 
Apostolate  as  Christ  had  described  it  and  bestowed  it, 
with  its  special  prerogatives  and  powers,  for  it  was 
the  Apostolate  which  was  Peter’s,  and  he  would 
not  have  been  reinstated  had  it  been  diminished. 

Now,  what  was  the  nature  of  this  Apostolate  given 
to  Peter,  according  to  the  teaching  of  S.  Cyril  ? He 
describes  it  himself  elsewhere.  Thus,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  S.  John,  he  writes:  ‘^He  (Christ) 
suffers  him  no  longer  to  be  called  Simon,  exercising 
authority  and  rule  over  him  already  as  having  be- 


ip.  39 


54 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


come  His  own.  But  by  a title  suitable  to  the  thing, 
He  changed  his  name  into  Peter,  from  the  word 
‘ petra  * (rock) ; for  on  him  He  was  afterwards  to 
found  His  Church.”^  When  afterwards,”  if  not, 
according  to  the  meaning  of  S.  Cyril,  precisely  when 
Peter  was  reinstated  and  Christ  said  to  him:  Feed 
My  lambs  ? And  again  that  great  Father  writes : 
“ They  (the  apostles)  strove  to  learn  through  one, 
that  pre-eminent  one,  Peter.”^  “ And  even  the 
blessed  Peter,  though  set  over  the  holy  disciples, 
says.  Lord,”  etc.^  “If  Peter  himself,  that  Prince 
of  the  holy  disciples,  was  upon  one  occasion  scandal- 
ised,” etc.^ 

We  might  multiply  such  quotations  from  the 
writings  of  S.  Cyril,  but  surely  his  teaching  is  clear 
in  the  passages  here  mentioned. 


PART  III 

Arguments  from  Scripture  against  the  Supremacy 
AND  Infallibility 

We  now  come  to  deal  with  the  latter  portion  of  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  book,  and  first  of  all  with  what  he  is 
pleased  to  style  the  evidence  which  Holy  Scripture 
affords  against  the  belief  in  any  supremacy  or  in- 


1 T.  iv. 


lib.  ix. 


3 Ibid. 


^Ib.,  lib.  xii. 


THE  ACTS 


55 


fallibility.  1 He  bas  proved  to  his  own  satisfaction 
that  positive  Scriptural  evidence  in  support  of  S. 
Peter’s  supremacy  and  infallibility  there  is  abso- 
lutely none.”2  Here  he  proceeds  to  state  that  there 
is  a considerable  body  of  evidence  tending  to  show 
that  he  (Peter)  was  not  supreme  nor  infallible,  con- 
fining himself  to  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  Book 
of  Acts  and  Epistles,  because,  he  assures  us,  that 
to  cite  the  passages  in  the  life  of  S.  Peter  which  are 
recorded  in  the  Gospels  is  not  fair.^  What  a pity 
that  he  did  not  find  out  sooner  that  what  he  was 
doing  up  to  this  point  was  not  fair.  He  would  thus 
have  spared  himself,  and  us,  considerable  trouble. 


(I-) 

His  first  argument  is  based  upon  the  text,  “ Ye 
shall  be  witnesses  unto  Me,”^  because  in  these  words 
our  Lord  gave  no  sort  of  superiority  to  one  over 
another.”^  What  Dr.  Oxenham  can  possibly  prove 
from  this  text  is  beyond  comprehension,  except  on 
the  supposition  that  he  fails  to  understand  the  Catho- 
lic doctrine  concerning  the  Apostles,  and  their 
relative  position  to  S.  Peter.  We  have  already 
explained  that  they  all  received  their  mission  from 
Christ,  and  had  world-wide  powers;  and  we  have 
'also  shown  that  every  Catholic  (Eomanist)  believes 

^ Page  43.  ^ Page  44.  ^ Pages  44,  45. 

* Acts  i.  8.  ^ Page  45. 


56 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


this,  and  that  it  does  not  in  the  least  detract  any- 
thing from  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter  when  that 
doctrine  is  properly  understood. 

Even  Dr.  Oxenham  is  obliged  to  confess  that  he 
finds  “ no  positive  proof  ” in  this  passage  of  the  Book 
of  Acts.  Meno  male!”  as  Italians  would  say. 


(II.) 

The  second  argument  brought  forward  by  Dr. 
Oxenham  is  drawn  from  the  events  described  in  the 
Acts,  in  connection  with  the  election  of  S.  Matthias 
in  the  place  of  Judas,  the  traitor.  “ They  appointed 
two.  . . . But  did  the  supreme  and  infallible 
head  of  the  Church  choose  between  these  two  and 
appoint  the  fittest?”^  exclaims  Dr.  Oxenham.  No; 
and  why  should  he?  What  has  infallibility  got  to 
do  with  choosing  the  fittest  of  these  two  candidates  ? 
And  what  is  there  here  against  the  supremacy  ? 

The  question  was  one  of  special  importance,  and 
unique  in  character.  An  Apostle  had  to  be  elected, 
that  is  to  say,  one  who  received  his  mission  directly 
from  God.  Hence,  it  became  necessary  that,  as  far 
as  possible,  God  Himself  should  select  the  person. 
Accordingly,  the  Apostles  have  recourse  to  prayer 
and  to  a casting  of  lots.  But  who  undertook  the  whole 
matter,  which  was  of  such  importance?  Who  de- 
clared it  to  be  necessary,  and  authoritatively  placed 


^ Page  46. 


THE  ACTS 


57 


it  before  the  assembled  brethren  ? No  other  than  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles.  Peter  it  was  who  rose  up 
in  the  midst  of  the  brethren  and  proved  from  Holy 
Scripture  the  necessity  of  substituting  Judas.  He 
it  was  who  declared  that  it  must  ” be  done.  The 
Apostles  unanimously  accepted  his  declaration,  and 
proceeded  to  the  election.  There  were  no  claims  of 
infallibility,  nor  could  there  be  in  such  a matter, 
but  there  was  an  act  of  government  on  the  part  of  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles.  Dr.  Oxenham  does  not 
think  so,  whereas  his  friend  S.  Chrysostom  thinks 
as  we  do.  Listen  to  the  words  of  that  great  Father : 
“ Both  as  fervent,  and  as  one  entrusted  by  Christ 
with  the  flock,  and  as  the  flrst  of  the  choir,  he  ever 
first  begins  to  speak.  . . . But  might  not  Peter 

by  himself  have  elected?  Certainly;  but  he  does 
not  so,  that  he  may  not  seem  partial.”  And,  having 
spoken  of  the  humility  of  S.  Peter,  S.  Chrysostom 
points  out  that  there  was  no  abuse  of  power  or  proud 
exercise  of  authority,  though  authority  there  was : 
“ Peter  doing  this  with  common  consent,  nothing 
with  imperiousness,  nothing  with  lordship.  . . . 

He  flrst  acts  on  authority  in  the  matter,  as  having 
himself  all  'put  into  his  hands,  for  to  him  Christ  said : 
And  thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy  brethren.” ^ 
The  successor  of  S.  Peter  would  act,  and  does  act, 
in  the  same  way  to-day  in  all  matters  of  importance, 
whether  of  faith  or  of  discipline. 


^ Horn.  3 in  Act. 


58 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


(III.) 

The  institution  of  Deacons,  strange  to  say,  becomes 
an  argument  in  Dr.  Oxenham’s  bands  against  the 
supremacy  of  S.  Peter,  because  it  is  written : “ The 
twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto 
them,”  and  proposed  that  seven  men  of  honest 
report  ” should  be  appointed.  The  proposal  pleased 
the  whole  multitude,  and  they  chose  Stephen  and 
the  other  six.  This,  we  are  told  by  Dr.  Oxenham, 
is  “ very  hard  to  reconcile  with  Papal  claims. 
Why.^  Dr.  Oxenham  does  not  say,  and  who  can 
tell?  The  twelve  Apostles,  including  Peter,  decide 
to  institute  the  Deacons.  The  Pope  calls  together 
a number  of  Bishops,  and  even  others  who  are  not 
Bishops,  and  together  with  them  decides  upon  a 
question,  and  yet  no  one  dreams  of  arguing  that  this 
is  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  supremacy;  much  less 
would  any  one  think  of  doing  so  where  the  twelve 
Apostles  are  concerned.  But  this  is  Dr.  Oxenham’s 
manner  of  reasoning. 


(IV.) 

“ Now,  when  the  Apostles  who  were  in  Jerusalem 
had  heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of 
God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John  to  con- 
firm those  who  had  already  been  baptised.  ‘‘  They 


^ Acts  vi. 


Page  48. 


^ Acts  viii.  14. 


THE  ACTS 


59 


were  sent.  . . . That  was  a strange  way  for  the 

Apostles  to  deal  with  that  exalted  person  who  was 
their  supreme  and  absolute  ruler ! So  writes  Dr. 
Oxenham.  This  latter  exclamation  of  his  amounts 
almost  to  a sneer  against  the  person  of  S.  Peter, 
which,  to  say  the  least,  is  unbecoming.  In  this  fact 
of  the  two  Apostles  being  “ sent,”  Dr.  Oxenham  sees 
an  argument  against  the  supremacy  of  Peter.  Had 
he  considered  the  whole  text  of  that  chapter  in  the 
Book  of  Acts  a little  more  carefully  he  would  have 
discovered  his  mistake.  For  (1)  S.  Peter  was  among 
the  senders,  and  hence  he  may  be  said  to  have  sent 
himself,  especially  as  he  always  took  the  lead.  (2) 
There  is  no  objection  to  those  who  are  in  a subordinate 
position  expressing  their  wish  that  their  superior 
should  act  in  a given  way,  nor  in  their  sending  ” 
him.  This  is  all  the  more  intelligible  where  Apostles 
are  concerned.  Nations,  before  now,  have  “ sent  ” 
their  Sovereigns  and  Princes  on  important  missions, 
without  suggesting  a doubt  as  regards  their  superior- 
ity. And  to  only  mention  instances  taken  from  Holy 
Scripture,  has  Dr.  Oxenham  forgotten  what  we  read 
in  the  Old  Testament,^  that  the  people  of  Israel 
sent  ” Phinees,  the  son  of  Eleazar  the  priest,  and 
ten  'princes  with  him,  to  the  Rubenites?  Will  Dr. 
Oxenham  question  the  position  and  authority  of 
Phinees  and  of  the  ten  Princes,  because  they  were 
“ sent  ” ? Again,  we  read  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 


^ Page  49. 


2 Josue  xxii.  13. 


60 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


were  sent  to  Jerusalem  by  the  Antiochians  to  consult 
the  ApostlesJ  Are  we  to  conclude  that  Paul  was 
their  equal  or  their  inferior,  or  not  an  Apostle  because 
they  sent  him  ? (3)  If  Dr.  Oxenham  will  refer  to  the 

whole  narrative  in  the  chapter  of  the  Acts  which  he 
has  mentioned,  he  will  find  that  S.  John  is  simply  S. 
Peter’s  companion,  and  that  he  acts  the  second  part. 
Peter  it  was  who  proclaimed  the  teaching,  and  he 
alone  commands,  judges,  condemns,  and  finally 
infiicts  punishment  upon  Simon  Magus.  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham remarks : “ Let  us  try  to  imagine  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal assembly  in  mediaeval  or  in  modern  Pome  ‘send- 
ing ’ the  Pope  and  some  other  Bishop  down  to  IN’ aples, 
or  elsewhere,  to  hold  a confirmation. Well,  the 
idea  is  picturesque,  but  it  is  not  inadmissible  if  Dr. 
Oxenham  will  also  imagine  the  Pope  in  Italy  with 
only  a few  Bishops  round  him  to  provide  for  all  the 
needs  of  the  Church.  In  such  circumstances,  the 
Pope  might  very  easily  be  “ sent  ” down  to  Naples,  or 
elsewhere,  to  hold  a confirmation,  and  when  he  got 
there  he  might  condemn  another  Simon  Magus.  “ S. 
Peter,”  says  Dr.  Oxenham,  “ appears  to  have  gone  to 
Samaria,  when  he  was  sent  without  exhibiting 
any  consciousness  that  his  dignity  was  injured.”^ 
Yes,  because  his  dignity  was  not  injured,  nor  had  S. 
Peter  the  proud  and  over-sensitive  nature  which  Dr. 
Oxenham  seems  to  think  necessary  in  one  who  holds 
an  exalted  office.  That  is  all. 


’ Acts  XV.  2. 


2 Page  49. 


3 Ibid. 


THE  ACTS 


61 


(V.) 

We  are  now  invited  by  Dr.  Oxenbam  to  see  another 
argument  against  the  supremacy  and  infallibility  of 
S.  Peter  in  the  description  of  an  event  narrated  in 
the  ActSji  which,  as  a matter  of  fact,  when  it  is  not 
garbled  and  misrepresented,  sets  forth  the  position 
and  authority  of  S.  Peter  in  a most  remarkable  way. 
It  is  no  other  than  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and 
his  household,  an  event,  which,  as  Dr.  Oxenham 
rightly  remarks,  was  ‘‘  a most  notable  ” one,  and 
“ fraught  with  immense  results ; for  it  was  the  de- 
claration that  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  was  not  a 
limited  or  racial  religion,  like  the  religion  of  the 
Jews,  but  that  it  was  essentially,  what  it  has  ever  pro- 
fessed to  be,  a Catholic  religion,  for  all  nations  alike, 
for  every  country,  and  for  every  age.”^  He  might 
have  added,  and  therefore  not  a national  Branch  reli- 
gion. 

Consistently  with  his  method  of  “ not  reciting,”  Dr. 
Oxenham  only  recalls  the  events  narrated  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  the  Acts,  without  a word  upon 
what  we  are  told  in  the  tenth  chapter,  though  that 
chapter  is  so  essentially  connected  with  all  that  fol- 
lows in  the  eleventh  chapter,  that  it  cannot  be 
separated  from  it.  We  must  ask  the  reader  to  con- 
sider these  two  important  chapters  together,  and 
see  for  themselves  what  they  relate. 


1 Acts  X.,  xi. 


2 Page  50. 


62 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


God  sent  an  Angel  to  Cornelius,  but  Peter,  and  not 
tbe  Angel,  is  chosen  by  God  to  declare  the  supremely 
important  doctrine  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to 
the  Gentiles.  He  alone,  who  was  the  Hock,  the 
Huler,  and  the  Shepherd  of  the  whole  flock,  is  selected 
by  God  to  receive  the  great  revelation,  in  preference 
to  all  the  other  Apostles,  and  in  spite  of  their  all  hav- 
ing been  commissioned  to  teach  all  nations.  This 
of  itself  already  constitutes  a most  striking  proof  of 
S.  Peter’s  position.  Peter  in  an  ecstasy  of  mind  ” 
receives  the  great  vision,  as  it  were,  of  a “ great  linen 
sheet  let  down  by  the  four  corners  from  heaven  to 
the  earth,  wherein  were  all  manner  of  four-footed 
beasts  and  creeping  things  of  the  earth  and  fowls  of 
the  air.”  “ God  hath  shewed  to  me,”  he  was  able  to 
say,  “ to  call  no  man  common  or  unclean.”  ^ Accord- 
ingly, Epiphanius,  in  the  fourth  century,  writes  that 
the  mission » of  bringing  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church 
was  bestowed  upon  all  the  Apostles,  “ but  most  of  all 
on  blessed  Peter.”^  Peter,  to  whom  the  care  of  the 
whole  flock  had  been  given,  was  thus  toIH  what  the 
extension  of  Christ’s  fold  was  to  be,  embracing  within 
its  limits  Jews  and  Gentiles,  without  distinction. 

And  here  we  come  to  Dr.  Oxenham’s  extraordinary 
argument.  On  Peter’s  return  to  Jerusalem,  “the 
Apostles  and  brethren jvho  were  in  Judea,  having 
heard  that  the  Gentiles  also  had  received  the  word  of 
God  . . . they  that  were  of  the  circumcision  con- 


^ Acts  X. 


2 Hcer.  28,  3. 


THE  ACTS 


63 


tended  with  him.”^  And  we  are  told  what  they  said. 
“ Why  didst  thou  go  in  to  men  uncircumcised  and 
didst  eat  with  them?”  A very  natural  question,  it 
would  seem,  for  those  to  put,  who  as  yet  were  not 
aware  of  the  full  design  of  God’s  providence,  as  Petor 
now  was.  Dr.  Oxenham  concludes  that  those  who 
contended  with  him  were  “ evidently  altogether  un- 
conscious that  he  was  their  supreme  ruler,  and  in- 
fallible in  all  his  judgments  on  matters  of  faith  and 
morals.”^  Does  Dr.  Oxenham  hold,  then,  that  the 
Apostles  were  not  infallible  in  their  judgments  on 
matters  of  faith  and  morals,  or  deny  that  Peter  was 
at  all  events  one  of  the  infallible  Apostles,  to  say  the 
least?  It  would  appear  so,  by  this  remark.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  those  who  were  of  the  circumcision 
in  those  early  days  were  unconscious  of  a great  many 
things  which  they  had  yet  to  learn,  but  Qiere  is  not 
the  slightest  evidence  here  against  the  supremacy  and 
infallibility  of  S.  Peter.  When  holy  Job  said  : ‘‘If 
I did  despise  the  cause  of  my  manservant  or  of  my 
maidservant,  when  they  contended  with  me,”^  did  he 
imply  that  his  servants  were  his  equals  or  “ altogether 
unconscious  ” of  the  fact  that  he  was  their  lord  and 
master  ? S.  Peter,  in  reply  to  the  question  addressed 
to  him,  proceeds  at  once  to  relate  his  great  vision  and 
to  explain  the  revelation,  and  he  does  so  with  such 
authority  that  all  “ held  their  peace  and  glorified  God, 
saying,  God  then  has  also  to  the  Gentiles  given  repen- 


^ Acts  xi. 


® Job  xxxi.  13. 


64 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


tance  unto  Dr.  Oxenliain  discovers  in  this 

event  a proof  against  the  supremacy  and  infallibility 
of  S.  Peter,  and  says  that  he  mbmitted  his  case  to  the 
assembly,  as  if  their  approval,  and  not  his  authority 
in  declaring  his  vision,  really  settled  the  matter.  A 
more  foolish  travesty  of  the  facts  narrated  in  the  Book 
of  Acts  one  could  hardly  conceive.  And,  awkwardly 
enough  for  Dr.  Oxenham,  here  again  is  his  friend,  S. 
Chrysostom,  contradicting  his  views.  After  stating 
that  “ not  the  Apostles,  but  those  that  were  of  the  cir- 
cumcision ” contended  with  Peter,  S.  Chrysostom  ex- 
presses at  great  length  his  admiration  for  S.  Peter’s 
humility,  bringing  forward,  as  he  does,  God’s  direct 
action  in  the  matter  and  not  his  own,  and  then  he  ex- 
claims : “ See  how  he  defends  himself,  and  will  not 
use  his  dignity  as  the  teacher,  for  he  knew  that  the 
more  gently  he  spoke  with  them,  the  surer  he  was  to 
win  them.”2  And  the  great  S.  Gregory  thus  com- 
ments upon  the  incident : And  yet  the  same  first  of 
the  Apostles,  filled  with  so  great  a grace  of  gifts,  sup- 
ported by  so  great  a power  of  miracles,  answers  the 
complaint  of  the  faithful  by  an  appeal,  not  to  author- 
ity, but  to  reason.  . . . For  if,  when  blamed  by 

the  faithful,  he  had  considered  the  authority  which  he 
held  in  holy  Church,  he  might  have  answered  that  the 
sheep  entrusted  to  the  shepherd  should  not  venture 
to  censure  him.  But  if,  in  the  complaint  of  the  faith- 
ful, he  had  said  anything  of  his  own  power,  he  would 

^ 2 jn  Act.  Ap.  hom.  24. 


THE  ACTS 


65 


not  have  been  the  teacher  of  meekness.  Therefore 
he  quieted  them  with  humble  reason,  and  in  the 
matter  where  he  was  blamed  even  cited  witnesses. 
If,  therefore,  the  Pastor  of  the  Church,  the  Prince  of 
the  Apostles,  having  a singular  power  to  do  signs  and 
miracles,  did  not  disdain,  when  he  was  censured, 
humbly  to  render  account,  how  much  more  ought  we 
sinners,  when  blamed  for  anything,  to  disarm  our 
censurers  by  a humble  defence.”^  Dr.  Oxenham 
fails  to  see  the  difference  between  authority  and  the 
use  of  authority,  and  the  lesson  of  Peter’s  humility 
escapes  him. 

(VI.) 

The  Council  of  Jerusalem  is  the  next  notable  event 
related  in  the  Acts  which  affords  Dr.  Oxenham  a 
proof,  as  he  thinks,  that  S.  Peter  was  neither  supreme 
nor  infallible.  The  matter  under  consideration  is 
obviously  connected  with  the  point  which  we  have 
just  been  discussing.  The  mere  fact,  however,  of  the 
assembling  of  a Council,  constitutes,  in  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham’s  eyes,  an  argument  against  the  supremacy  and 
infallibility.  Because  S.  Peter  does  not  use  his 
authority  imperiously,  and  once  more  gives  us  an 
example  of  wisdom  and  humility,  acting  nevertheless 
with  very  great  power.  Dr.  Oxenham  concludes 
against  the  existence  of  Peter’s  prerogatives.  The 
Acts  narrate  that:  “the  Apostles  and  ancients 

^Lib.  ix.,  Ep.  39. 

E 


66 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


assembled  to  consider  of  this  matter.”^  “ But  what 
was  tbe  good  of  all  these  men  considering  the  matter,” 
exclaims  Dr.  Oxenham,  “ if  one  among  them  knew 
infallibly  what  ought  to  be  done  ? And  if,  moreover, 
he  was  authorised  and  empowered  as  the  Yicar  of 
Christ  to  impose  his  supreme  decision  upon  the 
whole  Church  The  answer  is  not  difficult  to  give, 
and  has  already  been  suggested  to  us  by  S.  Chrysostom 
in  the  previous  instance — because  the  supremacy  and 
infallibility  of  S.  Peter  do  not  imply  that  he,  nor  any 
of  his  successors,  is  to  use  his  prerogatives  like  a 
tyrant,  or  after  the  manner  of  some  magic  talisman  to 
be  hurled  at  the  Church  on  every  occasion  without 
reason,  or  without  consultation  with  those  who  have  a 
mission  of  teaching  together  with  him. 

But  what  are  the  facts,  as  they  are  described  in  the 
text  of  the  Acts?  Dr.  Oxenham  declares  that  S. 
James  presided  over  the  Council  of  Jerusalem.^ 
Where  are  his  proofs  for  this  statement?  Nothing 
of  the  kind  is  said  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  Dr.  Oxen- 
liam  is  obliged  to  confess  that  “We  are  not  told  in 
the  narrative  of  the  Book  of  Acts  the  reason  why  S. 
James  presided.”^  No,  of  course  not,  considering 
that  we  are  not  told  that  S.  James  presided  at  all,  and 
that  Dr.  Oxenham  has  invented  this  for  himself.  To 
say  that  S.  James  must  have  presided  because  he  was 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  either  then  or  later,  is  deside 
the  point  and  simply  to  beg  the  whole  question. 


^ Acts  XV. 


2 Page  53. 


Page  53. 


THE  ACTS 


67 


Now,  the  description  of  what  took  place  at  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem,  as  we  read  it  in  the  Acts,  is 
totally  different  to  the  one  with  which  we  are  favoured 
by  Dr.  Oxenham.  For  we  read  there  that  S.  Peter 
was  the  first  to  rise  up  and  address  the  assembled 
brethren,  who,  as  we  may  rightly  presume,  waited  for 
him  to  speak.  He  proceeded  forthwith  to  make  the 
following  most  solemn  declaration  of  Ms  election  by 
God  to  the  privilege  of  receiving  the  Gentiles.  Listen 
to  his  words : ‘‘  Men  brethren,  you  know  that  in  for- 
mer days  God  made  choice  among  us  that  hy  my 
mouth  the  Gentiles  should  hear  the  word  of  the  gospel, 
and  believe.  And  God  who  knoweth  the  hearts,”  etc.^ 
S.  Peter  therefore  declares  that  God  has  already 
manifested  what  the  decision  is  to  be,  and  by  his 
ministry.  He  accordingly  goes  on  to  exclaim  with 
words  full  of  power : “ Now,  therefore,  why  tempt  you 
God  to  put  a yoke  upon  the  necks  of  the  disciples, 
which  neither  our  fathers  or  we  have  been  able 
to  bear?  But  by  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
we  believe  to  be  saved,  in  like  manner  as  they  also.”^ 
And  what  was  the  result  of  these  words  of  authority, 
upon  the  Jewish  converts  who  felt  so  strongly  in  re- 
gard to  the  matter  ? The  text  tells  us  Hiat  all  the 
multitude  held  their  peace.”  Most  distressing  it  is 
for  Dr.  Oxenham,  but  unfortunately  S.  Chrysostom 
contradicts  him  once  again.  “ How  full  of  power,” 
writes  this  great  Father,  ‘‘  are  the  words  (of  Peter) ; 


^ Acts  XV.  8. 


2 Acts  XV.  10,  11. 


68 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


he  says  here  what  Paul  has  said  at  great  length  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Eomans.  . . The  seeds  of  all  this  lie 

in  Peter’s  discourse.  . . See,  he  first  permits  a dis- 

cussion to  arise  in  the  Church,  and  then  he  speaks.”^ 
After  S.  Barnabas  and  S.  Paul,  S.  James  addresses  the 
assembly,  and  how  does  he  begin  his  argument  ? He 
immediately  refers  to  Peter’s  words,  not  to  the  words 
of  either  Barnabas  or  Paul.  “ Simon,”  he  says,  “ hath 
related  how  God  first  visited  to  take  of  the  Gentiles  a 
people  to  his  name.”^  He  thus  emphasises  all  that 
Peter  had  declared  God  to  have  done  “ by  his  mouth.” 
And  then  S.  James  expresses  his  own  judgment  in  full 
conformity  with  Peter’s  declaration.  Why  should 
he  not  have  done  so  ? What  is  there  inconsistent  here 
with  the  true  conception  of  Peter’s  ofiice  as  Prince 
of  the  Apostles?  S.  James  was  his  fellow-apostle. 
Though  in  union  with,  and  in  a measure  dependent 
upon  Peter,  S.  James  was  a teacher  and  a judge  in 
Council,  and  he  gave  his  judgment,  just  as  every 
Bishop  must  do,  and  has  done,  in  every  (Ecumenical 
Council  under  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  It  would 
appear  from  Dr.  Oxenham’s  manner  of  reasoning  that 
the  head  of  an  assembly,  who  takes  the  initiative  and 
declares  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  those  who  are 
sitting  in  judgment  with  him,  loses  his  prerogatives 
by  the  mere  fact  of  other  judges  being  present  and 
rising  up  to  express  their  mind.  Eor,  it  was  his  own 
sentence  that  S.  James  gave.  Dr.  Oxenham  actually 


^ Horn.  32. 


2 V.  14. 


THE  ACTS 


69 


dares  to  change  the  words  of  Holy  Writ  and  say  that 
“ S.  James  rose  and  gave  the  sentence  of  the  Council”^ 
That  is  absolutely  contrary  to  the  narrative  in  the 
Acts.  The  text  distinctly  asserts  that  S.  James  said : 

“ Wherefore  my  sentence  is ” or  as  we  have  it  I 

judge.  The  sentence  of  the  cohncil  is  given  much 
further  on  in  verse  28,  as  follows:  ‘‘For  it  hath 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lay  no 
further  burden  upon  you  than  these  necessary 
things : that  you  abstain  from  things  sacrificed  to 
idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and 
from  fornication,  from  which  things  keeping  your- 
selves, you  shall  do  well.  Fare  ye  well.”  This  is 
the  Decree  and  Judgment  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem, 
with  Peter  at  its  head ; a decree  common  to  all  judges 
in  the  category  in  which  each  one  is  placed.  Nor  may 
one  travesty  the  narrative  by  saying  that  it  implies 
that  all  the  judges  were  of  equal  rank.  Therefore  is 
it  that  S.  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  writes  that 
Peter  “ used  his  wonted  freedom,  and  that  the  Apostle 
James  followed  his  sentence,  and  all  the  ancients  at 
once  acceded  to  it,  and  the  decree  was  drawn  up 

on  his  wording.’’^ 

To  be  logical.  Dr.  Oxenham  must  go  further  and  say 
that  the  Ancients  and  Brethren  had  the  same  rank 
and  authority  as  the  Apostles,  because  the  decree  of 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem  was  issued  as  the  decree  of 
“ the  Apostles,  Elders,  and  Brethren.”  Will  he  dare 


1 Page  54. 


^ Ep.  75  int.  August. 


70 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


to  say  this  ? We  hardly  think  so.  And  yet  when  he 
is  intent  upon  inveighing  against  the  supremacy  of 
S.  Peter,  he  does  not  shrink  from  such  reasoning. 

(vn.) 

The  case  of  Ananias  and  Saphira,  and  S.  Peter’s 
remarkable  and  most  significant  exercise  of  authority 
in  connection  with  the  sin  of  those  two  unfortunate 
souls  is  not  mentioned  by  Dr.  Oxenham,  but  he,  of 
course,  lays  hold,  with  much  eagerness,  of  the  famous 
incident  recorded  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
when  S.  Paul  rebuked  S.  Peter.  It  was  not  likely 
that  Dr.  Oxenham  would  fail  to  try  and  make  capital 
out  of  that  notable  event,  in  support  of  his  contention, 
as  so  many  Protestants  have  done  before  him,  wrest- 
ing the  text  “ as  they  do  also  the  other  Scriptures  to 
their  own  destruction.”^  Dr.  Oxenham,  as  we  have 
remarked  before,^  gives  proof  here  that  he  has  not 
understood  the  nature  of  the  prerogative  of  infalli- 
bility which  is  claimed  for  S.  Peter  and  for  his  succes- 
sors, and  very  little,  too,  of  the  supremacy.  Had  he 
understood  what  we  mean  by  infallibility,  he  could 
never  have  written  the  following  sentence : For 
whether  S.  Peter’s  fault  on  this  occasion  were  one  ‘ of 
faith ’ or  ‘of  fact,’  whether  his  fault  were  ‘ light 
and  venial  ’ or  not,  the  fact  remains  that  he  was  in 
the  wrong,  that  S.  Paul  withstood  him  before  the 


^ 2 Pet.  iii.,  16. 


^ See  Introductory  chapter. 


THE  ACTS 


71 


Church,  and  openly  rebuked  him/’^  Now,  we  have 
explained  elsewhere  what  is  meant  by  infallibility, 
and  the  reader  will  see  at  a glance  that  in  order  to 
prove  anything  against  this  prerogative  of  S.  Peter, 
the  point  which  Dr.  Oxenham  had  to  establish,  was 
precisely  that  S.  PetePs  fault  on  that  occasion  was 
one  “ of  faith.’’  That  is  the  kernel  of  the  whole  ques- 
tion, unless  the  true  meaning  of  infallibility^  as 
taught  by  Catholics,  is  misrepresented  and  made  to 
signify  something  very  different  to  that  which  is 
really  claimed  for  S.  Peter  and  for  his  successors.  Dr. 
Oxenham  has  not  proved  the  point  that  concerns  us 
in  this  controversy,  and  he  could  not  do  so.  - 

But  what  was  the  reason  of  S.  Paul’s  rebuke  and 
the  subject  of  discussion?  The  facts  are  clearly 
before  us.  S.  Peter  was  blamed  by  S.  Paul  for  what 
he  did,  and  not  for  what  he  taught.  He  was  rebuked 
because  “ before  that  some  came  from  James,  he  did 
eat  with  the  Gentiles,  but  when  they  were  come,  he 
withdrew  and  separated  himself,  fearing  them  who 
were  of  the  circumcision.”^  It  was  therefore  not  his 
faith,  but  his  manner  of  acting  which  S.  Paul  thought 
it  necessary  to  censure  under  the  circumstances.  Pre- 
cisely because  Peter  occupied  such  a pre-eminent 
position,  his  behaviour  influenced  others,  and  in- 
fluenced them  in  a way  which  might  hamper  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles,  with  whom  S.  Paul  was  so 
especially  dealing.  And  it  was  on  account  of  S. 


^ Page  58. 


2 Gal.  ii.  12. 


72 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


Peter’s  pre-eminent  position  that  S.  Paul  attached 
such  great  importance  to  S.  Peter’s  behaviour.  S. 
Chrysostom  tells  Dr.  Oxenham  this : “ If  it  had  been 
another  Peter,”  he  writes,  his  change  would  not  have 
had  such  power  as  to  draw  the  rest  of  the  J ews  with 
him.  Por  he  did  not  exhort  or  advise,  but  merely 
dissembled  and  separated  himself,  and  that  dis- 
sembling and  separation  had  power  to  draw  after  him 
all  the  disciples,  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  his  per- 
son.”^ The  Jewish  practices,  that  were  not  incom- 
patible with  the  New  Law,  were  not  forbidden,  and 
were  permitted  to  the  Jewish  converts,  who  clung 
very  naturally  to  many  of  their  old  traditions.  On 
the  other  hand,  they  constituted  a yoke  which  was  not 
to  be  imposed  upon  the  Gentiles,  as  S.  Peter,  speaking 
of  the  doctrinal  principle,  had  clearly  declared  at  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem.  Whether  or  not  S.  Peter  was 
really  at  fault  in  acting  in  two  different  ways,  accord- 
ing to  his  manner  of  appreciating  the  circumstances, 
the  fact  is  that  when  he  was  with  the  Gentiles,  “ before 
that  some  came  from  James,  he  did  eat  with  the  Gen- 
tiles,”2  and  when  those  Jews  did  come  from  James, 
he  feared  displeasing  or  scandalising  them,  and  acted 
according  to  their  custom,  a custom  which,  presum- 
ably, was  allowed  by  S.  James.  Has  Dr.  Oxenham 
forgotten  that  S.  Paul,  when  he  thought  that  the  cir- 
cumstances justified  his  doing  so,  acted  precisely  on 


^ Horn,  in  loc. 


2 Gal.  ii.  12. 


THE  ACTS 


73 


the  same  principle  ? Let  Dr.  Oxenham  consider  the 
two  texts  which  I have  here  placed  side  by  side. 


Oalatians  ii.  3. 

But  neither  Titus,  who  was 
with  me,  being  a gentile,  was 
compelled  to  be  circumcised. 


Acts  xvi.  3. 

And  taking  him  (Timothy) 
he  circumcised  him,  because 
of  the  Jews  who  were  in 
those  places.  For  they  all 
knew  that  his  father  was  a 
gentile. 


Here  we  have  S.  Paul,  out  of  regard  for  the  Jews, 
not  merely  eating  according  to  the  Jewish  custom,  but 
actually  obliging  his  disciple  Timothy  to  be  circum- 
cised, because  he  was  the  son  of  a J ewish  woman  that 
believed,  but  his  father  was  a Gentile.”  "The  fact  of 
Timothy’s  father  being  a Gentile,  and  his  mother  a 
Jewish  convert  was  not  sufficient  in  S.  Paul’s  eyes  to 
dispense  with  the  rite  of  circumcision,  “ because  of 
the  Jews  who  were  in  those  places.”  Whereas,  in 
other  circumstances,  he  did  not  compel  Titus  to  be 
circumcised.  It  was  on  the  same  principle  that  S. 
Peter  acted  in  Antioch,  eating  with  the  Gentiles,  in 
one  instance,  and  separating  himself  in  the  other.  S. 
Paul,  however,  did  not  consider  that  the  circumstances 
at  Antioch  were  such  as  to  allow  of  Peter  acting  in 
this  way.  The  two  Apostles  therefore  took  a different 
view  of  those  circumstances.  Hence  the  rebuke.  But 
what  has  this  to  do  with  infallibility  ? And  as  to  S. 
Peter’s  supremacy,  a little  attention  suffices  to  show 
that  the  whole  tenor  of  S.  Paul’s  argument  to  the 
Galatians,  who  had  calumniated  him,  constitutes  a 
fresh  indication  of  the  supremacy  which  he  acknow- 


74 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


ledged  in  S.  Peter.  For,  the  force  of  his  reasoning 
lies  precisely  in  this,  that  he  had  resisted  even  Peter, 
and  blamed  his  conduct  at  Antioch,  thus  placing  be- 
yond doubt  that  he  could  not  be  accused  of  considering 
the  “ works  of  the  Law  ” as  necessary  in  the  Law  of 
Christ.  S.  Paul  could  not  fail  to  convince  his  accusers 
when  he  showed  them  that  he  had  not  hesitated  to 
protest  on  one  occasion  even  against  Peter’s  condescen- 
sion towards  the  Jews.  And  Peter,  as  they  knew, 
held  the  most  exalted  position. 

Does  Dr.  Oxenham  imagine  that  even  to-day  a 
Bishop  might  not  expostulate  with  a Pope,  who,  in  his 
judgment,  might  be  acting  in  a way  which  was  liable 
to  mislead  those  under  his  own  charge,  and  then  write 
to  his  critics  that  he  had  not  hesitated  to  pass  stric- 
tures upon  the  action  of  the  successor  of  S.  Peter? 
The  hypothesis  is  quite  conceivable,  and  in  no  way 
destroys  or  diminishes  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope. 
And  yet  an  individual  Bishop  does  not  occupy  the  ex- 
ceptional position  of  S.  Paul,  a fellow- Apostle  of  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles.  Even  a humble  nun,  S. 
Catherine  of  Siena,  expostulated  with  the  reigning 
Pontiff,  in  her  day,  whilst  fully  acknowledging  all 
his  great  prerogatives. 

We  may  conclude  this  argument  with  another  text 
from  S.  Chrysostom,  who  again  steps  in  to  refute  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  views  about  S.  Peter.  Observe  his 
(Paul’s)  prudence,”  writes  that  Father  of  the  Greek 
Church,  “ he  said  not  to  him  (Peter),  thou  dost  wrong 
in  living  as  a Jew,  but  he  alleges  his  (Peter’s)  former 


THE  ACTS 


75 


mode  of  living,  tliat  the  admonition  and  the  counsel 
may  seem  to  come,  not  from  Paul’s  mind,  hut  from 
the  judgment  of  Peter  already  expressed.  For,  had 
he  said,  thou  dost  wrong  to  keep  the  Law,  Peter’s 
disciples  would  have  blamed  him,  but  now,  hearing 
that  this  admonition  and  correction  came,  not  from 
Paul’s  judgment,  but  that  Peter  himself  so  lived,  and 
held  in  his  mind  this  belief  whether  they  would  or 
not,  they  were  obliged  to  be  quiet.” ^ 

Dr.  Oxenham  concludes  his  paragraph  with  a fur- 
ther misrepresentation,  which  is  remarkable.  He 
adds : “ and  the  subsequent  judgment  of  the  Church, 
first  formulated  by  the  Council  at  Jerusalem,  and 
afterwards  endorsed  by  universal  acceptance,  declared 
that  S.  Paul  was  in  the  right.”^  These  words  imply 
surely  that  the  decree  of  the  Apostles,  sitting  in 
Council  at  Jerusalem,  was  not  authoritatively  de- 
livered, in  spite  of  the  Apostles  saying  that  it  had 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  ” and  to  them,  and 
that  it  required  to  be  endorsed  by  universal  accept- 
ance. Where  will  Dr.  Oxenham  stop?  However, 
considering  that  S.  Peter  was  at  the  Council  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  formulated  the  judgment,  and  that  he  was 
the  first  to  formulate  it,  the  conclusion  must  be  that 
S.  Peter  declared  that  S.  Paul  was  in  the  right.” 
How  is  this  to  be  used  as  an  argument  against  S. 
Peter’s  supremacy  and  infallibility? 

And  now  Dr.  Oxenham  gives  us  a most  alarming 


^ Horn,  in  loc. 


2 Page  58. 


76 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


piece  of  news  under  the  sensational  heading:  “s. 
PETER  DISAPPEARS  ! The  heading  might  have  been 
taken  from  the  New  York  Herald  or  from  the  Daily 
Mail,  and  when  I read  it,  it  was  with  some  anxiety 
that  I hastened  to  ascertain  whether  Dr.  Oxenham 
had  discovered  that  S.  Peter  had  been  kidnapped,  or 
that  something  equally  dreadful  had  befallen  the 
great  Apostle.  Happily,  there  is  no  cause  for  alarm. 
Dr.  Oxenham  only  wishes  to  inform  us  that  the  Book 
of  Acts,  after  having  spoken  of  S.  Peter  in  the  course 
of  fifteen  chapters,  and  having  said  all  that  it  had 
to  say  about  him,  does  not  say  any  more.  A most 
astonishing  fact! 


(VIII.) 

After  all  that  we  have  repeatedly  said,  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages,  of  the  nature  of  the  Apostolic  mission, 
of  the  relative  position  of  the  Apostles  to  their  Prince 
and  Head,  and  of  the  difference  between  individual 
Bishops  and  the  xlpostles  with  their  personal  preroga- 
tives, not  much  is  required  now  to  dispose  of  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  attempt  to  argue  against  S.  Peter’s  very 
special  and  abiding  prerogatives,  from  the  Epistles  of 
S.  Paul.  Dr.  Oxenham’s  opening  remarks  on  page  59 
of  his  book  strike  one  as  somewhat  contradictory. 
“ Nowhere,”  he  writes,  and  the  italics  are  his,  in  the 
record  of  S.  Paul’s  Apostolic  journeys  does  he  make 
mention  that  he  is  acting  under  the  direction,  or  even 


THE  ACTS 


77 


by  the  advice  or  consent  of  S.  Peter.”  But  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham  goes  on  to  say  in  the  very  next  sentence,  where 
he  speaks  of  S.  Paul  going  to  visit  S.  Peter,  that 
nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  that  S.  Paul 
should  have  gone  to  “ take  counsel  ” with  S.  Peter, 
and  that  “ Such  a visit  seems  to  imply  that  S.  Paul  at 
that  time  regarded  S.  Peter  as  one  whose  experience 
and  advice  might  be  useful.”^  This  remark  leaves  us 
to  wonder  whether  S.  Paul,  according  to  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham’s  view,  did  or  did  not  take  counsel  with  S.  Peter ; 
or  whether  Dr.  Oxenham  thinks  that  S.  Paul  went  to 
“ take  counsel  ” with  S.  Peter  with  his  mind  made  up 
not  to  act  in  conformity  with  the  advice  that  he  re- 
ceived. Many  people,  no  doubt,  follow  that  course, 
but  we  can  hardly  admit  that  S.  Paul  so  acted. 

As  to  what  Dr.  Oxenham  writes  in  this  chapter,  his 
arguments  are  so  far  beside  the  mark,  that  it  will 
suffice  to  recall  to  mind  the  following  points. 
(1)  S.  Paul,  being  an  Apostle,  and  having  there- 
fore received  his  mission  directly  from  Christ, 
was  not  called  upon  to  appeal  for  direc- 
tion to  S.  Peter,  though  he  could  never  act 
inconsistently  with  Peter’s  special  prerogatives 
bestowed  also  by  Christ,  or,  in  that  sense,  without  de- 
pendence upon  the  office  of  Chief  Shepherd,  which 
Christ  had  instituted  in  the  Church  long  before  S. 
Paul’s  conversion.  (2)  S.  Paul,  as  regards  the 
Apostolate,  was  indeed  not  “ behind  the  very  chiefest 


1 Page  59. 


78 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


of  the  Apostles,”  as  he  himself  tells  those  of  the  Cor- 
inthians and  Galatians  who  were  inclined  to  question 
his  apostolic  mission  and  authority,  and  harboured  the 
prejudice  that  they  were  less  favoured  because  S.  Paul 
was  not  sent  forth  by  Christ  under  the  same  circum- 
stances as  the  other  Apostles.  The  very  fact,  how- 
ever, of  comparing  himself  in  this  respect  with  the 
“ very  chiefest  of  the  Apostles  ” indicates  that  he  was 
not  inferior  to  them  as  regards  the  apostolic  mission, 
while  it  implies  that  there  could  be  a difference  of 
rank  even  amongst  the  Apostles,  and  hence  does  not 
exclude  the  special  position  of  one  of  them,  if  that 
position  was  known  to  exist.  (3)  Having  received 
his  mission  from  Christ  Himself,  S.  Paul  had  not  to 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  Christ’s  Vicar,  but  to  what 
he  himself  had  preached  by  Christ’s  authority.  “ For 
neither  did  I receive  it  of  man,  nor  did  I learn  it ; but 
by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.”^  (4)  S.  Paul 
could  teach  everywhere  in  all  the  Churches,  like 
every  one  of  the  Apostles,  and  especially  in  the 
Churches  which  he  had  founded.  All  these  things 
we  freely  admit  and  most  emphatically  teach,  nor  are 
they  in  the  least  incompatible  with  the  true  concep- 
tion of  supremacy  and  infallibility  in  S.  Peter.  Dr. 
Oxenham  endeavours  to  make  a point  out  of  one  soli- 
tary text^  in  which  S.  Peter  does  not  happen  to  be 
mentioned  first.  He  forgets  the  almost  innumerable 
texts  in  which  S.  Peter  is  most  markedly  spoken  of 


1 Gal.  i.  12. 


2 Gal.  ii.  9. 


THE  ACTS 


79 


"before  the  others,  and  which  prevent  ns  from  drawing 
any  conclusion  from  the  order  in  which  the  three 
Apostles  happen  to  be  mentioned  in  this  one  instance. 
Moreover,  Dr.  Oxenham  does  not  remember  that 
several  ancient  manuscripts  of  this  very  text  do  name 
Peter  first.  The  original  Latin  version  does  so,  and 
this  reading  is  accepted  by  Tertullian,  Chrysostom, 
Ambrose,  Augustine,  Jerome,  Irenseus,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  and  others.  We  need  not  stop  to  dwell  further 
upon  S.  Paul’s  testimony  to  the  office  of  S.  Peter,  and 
we  have  said  enough  to  be  able  to  conclude  that  Dr. 
Oxenham  cannot  prove  that  “ the  language  and  the 
conduct  of  S.  Paul  . . . are  uniformly  and  unmis- 
takably fatal  to  the  Papal  pretension  that  S.  Peter  was 
either  infallible  or  supreme.”^ 


(ix.) 

Passing  on  to  discuss  the  two  Epistles  of  S.  Peter, 
Dr.  Oxenham  has  very  little  to  say  about  them,  and  he 
is  content  simply  to  assert  that  they  compel  us  to 
choose  between  two  alternatives — (1)  “ Either  S.  Peter 
was  really  unconscious  of  being  supreme  and  infal- 
lible ; or  (2)  he  managed  to  conceal  his  consciousness 
of  this  momentous  truth  in  a manner  which  must  have 
been  sadly  misleading  to  those  whom  he  was  bound  to 
teach  and  to  guide  aright,  in  a manner  which  was 
scarcely  consistent  with  honesty  or  with  charity — if 


^ Page  63. 


80 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


being  conscious  of  this  great  truth,  and  knowing  its 
immense  importance,  he  nevertheless  concealed  it.”^ 
Such  is  Dr.  Oxenham’s  way  of  reasoning.  Why  we 
are  to  believe  that  S.  Peter  only  taught  and  wrote 
what  is  contained  in  these  two  very  short  Epistles,  the 
only  ones  which  are  preserved  to  us.  Dr.  Oxenham 
does  not  say.  It  is  obvious  that  he  taught  a great  deal 
more,  though  there  was  no  necessity  for  him  to  speak 
in  these  two  Epistles  of  every  doctrine  of  which  he 
was  fully  conscious. 

According  to  Dr.  Oxenham’s  manner  of  reasoning, 
we  might  assert  that  S.  Peter  was  unconscious,  or  that 
he  concealed  his  belief  in  many  momentous  doctrines, 
of  which  Christ  spoke,  because  S.  Peter  does  not  hap- 
pen to  refer  to  them  in  his  two  Epistles.  Surely  this 
is  sophistry,  if  anything  is,  and  it  requires  only  to  be 
pointed  out  to  be  dismissed  with  a smile.  On  such 
grounds  it  would  be  quite  easy  a hundred  years  hence 
to  convict  Dr.  Oxenham  of  being  unconscious,  or  of 
concealing  the  mysteries  of  Christian  Eaith,  and  a 
number  of  other  truths  which  are  not  mentioned  in 
his  book.  As  a matter  of  fact,  however,  the  opening 
sentence  of  S.  Peter’s  first  Epistle,  written,  as  it  was, 
in  Rome,  is  particularly  significant,  and  suggests,  to 
say  nothing  more,  that  he  was  conscious  of  his  supreme 
authority.  Listen  to  his  words  : “ Peter,  an  apostle  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  strangers  dispersed  through  Pon- 
tus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bythinia,  elect.” 


1 Ibid. 


TRADITION 


81 


Here  we  liave  whole  regions  mentioned  in  which  Peter 
exercises  his  universal  jurisdiction,  and  regions  in 
which  the  Apostles  were  still  preaching.  That  sen- 
tence reminds  us  of  S.  Chrysostom’s  comment  upon  S. 
Peter’s  inspection  of  all  the  Churches,  mentioned  in 
the  Acts  ix.,  32,  and  with  those  words  of  S.  Chrysos- 
tom we  may  conclude  this  paragraph : “ Like  a 

general  he  went  round  surveying  the  ranks,  seeing 
what  portion  was  well  massed  together,  what  in  order, 
what  needed  his  presence.  Behold  him  making  his 
rounds  in  every  direction.”^ 


PAET IV 

(I.) 

THE  CONSTANT  BELIEF  OF  EVERY  AGE 

Pope  Leo  XIII.,  in  his  Encylical  on  the  Unity  of  the 
Church,  after  touching  upon  the  arguments  and  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church,  on 
behalf  of  the  supremacy  of  S.  Peter  and  of  his  succes- 
sors, concludes  with  these  words : “ Wherefore,  in 
the  decree  of  the  Vatican  Council  as  to  the  nature  and 
authority  of  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  no 
newly  conceived  opinion  is  set  forth,  but  the  venerable 
and  constant  belief  of  every  age.”^  These  words  fur- 
nish Dr.  Oxenham  with  an  opportunity  of  making  a 
fresh  onslaught,  and  in  his  fourth  and  fifth  lectures 


^ Horn.  21  in  Act. 


2 Satis  cognitum,  page  56. 


82 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


he  strives  to  overturn  the  Pope’s  conclusion  by  asser- 
tions which  become  holder  as  he  proceeds.  Referring 
once  again  to  the  texts  of  Holy  Scripture,  he  assures 
us  “ that  we  have  seen  that  the  venerable  Fathers  are 
not  at  all  agreed  as  to  those  texts,  except  in  one  point, 
namely,  that  no  one  of  them  [sic)  interprets  either  of 
those  texts  as  the  Church  of  Rome  does.”^  That  this 
statement  is  utterly  wide  of  the  truth  hardly  requires 
further  evidence,  and  the  passages  which  we  have 
quoted  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  together  with 
those  which  we  have  collected  in  our  Appendix,  are 
surely  sufficient  to  show  that  Dr.  Oxenham  ignores 
the  existing  evidence  and  that  he  is  trading  upon  the 
credulity  of  his  readers.  There  is  a great  deal,  there- 
fore, in  these  two  last  lectures  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s  which 
does  not  demand  further  attention,  and  that  we  need 
not  revert  to  again.  However,  as  some  of  the  asser- 
tions contained  in  the  latter  portion  of  his  hook  are 
particularly  hold,  and  by  their  very  boldness  may  im- 
press the  minds  of  certain  people,  we  cannot  pass  them 
over  without  a few  remarks. 

“ Silence  of  Thirteen  Centuries  ” is  the  startling 
heading  under  which  Dr.  Oxenham  begins  this  next 
attack  upon  Papal  claims,  but  in  support  of  his 
contention  he  prudently  refrains  from  quoting  more 
than  two  sentences  of  Dellinger’s  work,  The  Pope 
and  the  Council T To  this  assertion  we  may  im- 
mediately oppose  what  Renan  writes,  and  we  presume 


1 


TRADITION 


83 


that  Dr.  Oxenham  will  not  go  the  length  of  describ- 
ing Renan  as  an  advocate  of  Roman  claims. 

Rome,”  he  says,  ‘‘  was  the  place  in  which  the 
great  idea  of  Catholicity  was  worked  out.  More  and 
more  every  day  it  became  the  capital  of  Christianity, 
and  took  the  place  of  Jerusalem  as  the  religious 
centre  of  humanity.  Its  Church  claimed  a preced- 
ence over  all  others,  which  was  generally  given.  All 
the  doubtful  questions  which  agitated  the  Christian 
conscience  came  to  Rome  to  ask  for  arbitration,  if 
not  decision.  ...  At  the  end  of  the  second 
century  we  can  already  recognise  by  signs  which  it 
is  impossible  to  mistake  the  spirit  which  in  1870  will 
proclaim  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope.  . . . 

Irenaeus  (lib.  iii.  3.)  refutes  all  heresies  by  reference 
to  the  belief  of  this  Church — the  greatest,  the  oldest, 
the  most  illustrious — which  possesses  in  virtue  of 
unbroken  succession  the  true  tradition  of  £he  Apostles 
Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  which,  because  of  its  primacy, 
all  the  rest  of  the  Church  ought  to  have  recourse.”^ 
So  writes  one  as  prejudiced  and  unbelieving  as 
Renan,  and  yet  Dr.  Oxenham  would  have  us  accept 
his  assertion  that  there  was  no  mention  ever  made 
of  that  important  truth,”^  that  there  was  no  trace 
of  it  during  thirteen  centuries,  and  that  ‘‘it  was 
denied  and  rejected  as  soon  as  it  was  advanced.”^ 

Dr.  Oxenham  nevertheless  seems  almost  afraid  of 


^ Hibbert  Lecture  for  1880.  Eng.  translation,  pages  172-174. 
2 Page  67.  » Page  74. 


84 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


his  own  statement,  and  no  wonder!  For  lie  im- 
mediately drops  his  thirteen  centuries  ” and 
proceeds  to  argue  that  there  was  a silence  of  only  four 
hundred  years;  and  even  there  he  feels  unsafe,  and 
takes  refuge  in  three  centuries.  “ In  Holy  Scrip- 
ture,” he  writes,  “ it  is  not  recorded  that  S.  Peter 
assumed  to  decide,  by  his  supreme  and  infallible 
authority,  any  question  of  faith  or  morals.  It  is 
recorded  that  such  questions  arose,  and  it  is  recorded 
how  they  were  settled,  but  they  were  not  settled  by 
S.  Peter.”^  Now,  we  have  seen  that  Holy  Scripture 
does  speak  of  S.  Peter’s  most  authoritative  action  in 
the  early  days  of  the  Church,  at  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem,  and  we  have  reminded  our  readers  of 
other  instances  of  the  exercise  of  his  supreme 
authority  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Saphira,  of 
Simon  Magus,  etc.,  and  of  his  special  visitation  and 
inspection  of  the  Churches  founded  by  others.  Little 
indeed  there  could  be  in  Scripture  of  the  exercise  of 
Peter’s  authority  in  the  initial  stages  of  tlTe  Apostolic 
preaching  during  the  lifetime  of  the  other  Apostles, 
and  before  the  Church  had  fully  developed  her 
organisation  throughout  the  world.  There  is  more 
than  we  might  have  expected,  and  what  is  said  is 
already  a great  deal.  Nor  does  Dr.  Oxenham  under- 
take to  show  us  that  a more  frequent  and  explicit 
exercise  of  S.  Peter’s  authority  was  called  for  under 
the  circumstances,  and  in  the  judgment  of  S.  Peter 


1 Page  68. 


TEADITION 


85 


lumseli.  And  surely  S.  Peter,  and  not  Dr.  Oxenham, 
could  judge  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  should 
"best  make  use  of  his  authority?  It  is  not  because 
Dr.  Oxenham  thinks  that  S.  Peter,  or  his  immediate 
successors,  should  have  peremptorily  issued  dogmatic 
decrees  on  every  conceivable  occasion  that  anybody 
can  reasonably  conclude  that  the  supremacy  and 
infallibility  are  to  be  denied.  On  the  lines  of  Dr. 
Oxenham’s  reasoning  we  might  argue  that  the 
authority  and  prerogatives  of  any  sovereign  or  ruler 
were  to  be  rejected,  simply  because  in  a given  number 
of  instances  that  sovereign  or  ruler  did  not  think  fit 
to  assert  his  prerogatives  or  to  imperiously  impose  his 
legitimate  authority  upon  his  subjects.  Our  Lord 
Himself  did  not  use  His  authority  in  that  way.  But 
Dr.  Oxenham  has  strange  ideas  of  what  is  meant  by 
the  supremacy  of  the  Homan  Pontiff,  and  of  the 
manner  in  which  it  should  be  exercised. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  there  was  no  need  for  the 
Homan  Bishops  to  pronounce  personally,  by  dog- 
matic decrees,  upon  the  almost  innumerable  heresies 
of  the  early  centuries.  The  Church  at  large  knew 
perfectly  well,  as  her  enemies  did,  that  those  errors 
struck  at  the  very  root  of  Christianity.  That  was 
obvious  enough.  These  errors  stood  condemned  by 
the  elementary  teaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  Fathers 
and  leaders  of  Christian  thought  were  naturally  at 
one  upon  such  matters,  and  they  had  but  to  proclaim 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Incarnation  and 
Hedemption  to  establish  the  truth  in  the  minds  of 


86 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


those  who  were  willmg  to  listen.  And  again,  Dr. 
Oxenham  forgets  that  during  the  three  first  centuries 
of  the  Church  the  Eoman  Pontifis  were  constantly 
suffering  persecution,  often  flying  before  their  per- 
secutors, hiding  in  the  Catacombs,  taking  refuge  in 
different  directions,  or  dying  at  the  stake  in  the 
amphitheatres.  Those  were  not  times  when  it  was 
easy  for  them  to  be  properly  informed  of  the  exact 
condition  of  things,  and  to  be  in  a position  to  judge 
of  the  necessity  of  their  personal  intervention  between 
conflicting  parties,  or  of  the  possibility  and  wisdom 
of  issuing  dogmatic  definitions  and  enactments  of 
supreme  authority. 

But,  is  it  a fact  that  the  successors  of  S.  Peter  were 
silent  for  thirteen  centuries,  or  for  four  hundred 
years,  as  Dr.  Oxenham  declares  that  they  were,  and 
that  during  all  that  period  they  did  not  exercise  their 
supreme  authority  ? Is  it  true  that  their  supremacy 
was  not  acknowledged  throughout  those  centuries  ? 
How  does  Dr.  Oxenham  get  over  the  fact  of  S. 
Clement’s  intervention  in  Corinth,  in  the  first  century, 
or  of  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  in  the  third 
century, — whose  orthodoxy  had  been  questioned, — 
directing  his  apology  to  Pope  Dionysius,  and  receiv- 
ing from  him  a comforting  approval?  How  does 
he  explain  that  eighty  Bishops  of  Egypt  should  have 
written  to  Pope  Liberius,  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  beseeching  him  to  take  up  the  cause  of  S. 
Athanasius,  and  that  in  their  turn  the  Arian  heretics 
should  have  called  upon  the  Pope  to  use  his  authority 


TRADITION 


87 


against  Athanasius  In  that  same  fourth  century 
we  find  S.  Basil  appealing  to  Pope  Damasus,  and 
begging  him  to  exercise  his  authority  to  provide  for 
the  needs  of  the  Eastern  Churches.  And  yet  Dr. 
Oxenham  asserts  that  “ from  the  day  when  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  began  to  claim  supreme  dominion,  that  claim 
was  denied  and  rejected  by  the  Eastern  Churches  as 
a novelty,  uncatholic  and  unscriptural.”^ 

Even  the  unbelieving  Hamack,  after  stating  that 
Chrysostom  “ is  absolutely  silent  on  the  point  ” of 
peculiar  prerogatives  being  assigned  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  goes  on  to  say  that  the  testimonies  to  a 
special  dignity  being  possessed  by  the  Roman  Bishops 
are  not  wanting  in  the  fourth  century.  And, 
strangely  enough,  he  refers  us  to  S.  Chrysostom  in 
his  epistle  to  Pope  Innocent  I.,  and  writes  that  “ from 
A.D  380  this  dignity  bulked  more  largely  in  the  eyes 
of  Orientals.”  And  then,  though  Harnack  says  that 
it  was  without  receiving  a definite  and  fixed  mean- 
ing,” he  adds:  “Very  characteristic  in  this  respect 
are  the  Church  Histories  of  Socrates  and  Sozomen, 
who  on  this  point  are  free  from  partiality,  and  reflect 
the  universal  opinion.  But  it  does  not  occur  to  them 
to  doubt  that  the  Roman  Bishops  had  a special 
authority  and  a unique  relation  to  the  whole  Church.^^ 
And,  again,  he  makes  the  following  important 
admissions : ‘‘  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  even  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Orientals  there  attached  to  the  Roman 


^ Constant  Ep.  Rom.  Pont.,  pages  272-279. 


2 Page  74. 


88 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


Bishop  a special  something  which  was  wanting  to 
all  the  rest,  a nimbus  which  conferred  upon  him  a 
peculiar  authority/’^  A very  remarkable  “ nimbus  ” 
that  bestowed  so  much ! And  did  not  S.  Ambrose 
live  in  the  fourth  century  ? He  it  was  who  wrote  that 
‘‘  Where  Peter  is,  there  is  the  Church. The  true 
Church,  therefore,  according  to  that  great  Saint  and 
Father,  cannot  be  found  there  where  the  successor 
of  Peter  is  not.  Nor  did  S.  Ambrose  think,  with  Dr. 
Oxenham,  that  Peter’s  successor  was  silent.  It  is 
recorded  that  Pope  Siricius  wrote  to  S.  Ambrose, 
giving  orders  that  Jovinian  and  his  heretical  disciples 
should  be  excommunicated,  and  S.  Ambrose  replies : 
“We  have  recognised  in  the  letter  of  Your  Holiness 
the  watchfulness  of  the  good  shepherd,  who  dost  faith- 
fully guard  the  gate  entrusted  to  thee,  and  with  pious 
solicitude  dost  defend  the  fold  of  Christ.”^  And  what 
has  Dr.  Oxenham  to  say  of  the  testimony  of  S. 
Damasus,  a Saint  and  a Pope  of  the  fourth  century, 
who  writes  as  follows : “ Although,  dearest  brethren, 
the  decrees  of  the  Fathers  are  known  to  you,  yet  we 
cannot  wonder  at  your  carefulness  as  regards  the 
institutes  of  our  forefathers  that  you  cease  not,  as  the 
custom  ever  has  heen,  to  refer  all  those  things  which 
can  admit  of  any  doubt  to  us  as  to  the  head  that 
thence  you  may  derive  answers,  whence  you  received 
the  institution  and  rule  of  living  rightly  And 


^ Hist,  of  Dogma,  vol.  iii.  page  226.  ^ In  Ps.  xl. 

^ Migne  P.L.  16.  ^ Ep.  v.  Prosp.  Numid. 


TEADITION 


89 


how  does  Dr.  Oxenham  reconcile  his  assertion  with 
the  letter  of  the  great  S.  Jerome,  addressed  to  Pope 
Damasus,  in  that  same  fourth  century,  in  which 
he  says: — “Envy,  avaunt;  away  with  the  pride 
of  the  topmost  dignity  of  Rome;  I speak  with  the 
fisherman’s  successor,  and  the  disciple  of  the  cross. 
Following  no  chief  but  Christ,  I am  joined  in  com- 
munion with  Your  Holiness,  that  is  with  the  chair 
of  Peter.  Upon  that  rock  I know  that  the  Church 
was  built.  Whosoever  eats  the  lamb  out  of  this 
house  is  profane.  If  any  be  not  in  the  ark  of  Hoah, 
ho  will  perish  whilst  the  deluge  prevaileth.  . . . 

Whosoever  gathereth  not  with  thee,  scattereth,  that 
is,  whosoever  is  not  of  Christ,  is  anti-Christ”?^  Let 
Dr.  Oxenham  consider  these  words  of  the  Saints 
and  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  together  with 
other  similar  texts  in  our  Appendix.  Would  he  be 
prepared  to  write  to  Leo  XIII.  to-day  in  such  terms 
as  those  used  by  S.  Ambrose  and  S.  Jerome,  and  by 
so  many  others?  If  not,  it  remains  for  the  reader 
to  choose  between  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  and 
the  theories  put  forward  by  Dr.  Oxenham.  He 
mentions  S.  Augustine,  but  S.  Augustine,  together 
with  the  Bishops  of  the  Council  of  Milevis,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  wrote  to  Pope 
Innocent  I. — “We  think  that  those  who  hold 
such  perverse  and  pernicious  opinions  will  more 
readily  yield  to  the  authority  of  Your  Holiness, 


^ Ep.  XV. , Damas  Pap. 


90  PAPAL  CLAIMS 

derived  as  it  is  from  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.”^ 

A merely  negative  argument,  such  as  Dr.  Oxenham 
would  have  us  adopt,  when  he  states  that  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Bishop  of  Home  are  not  mentioned 
in  the  writings  of  certain  Fathers  in  a given  instance, 
without  proving  why  those  Fathers  should  neces- 
sarily have  alluded  to  those  prerogatives  in  that  par- 
ticular instance,  is  of  absolutely  no  avail  to  establish 
the  absolute  silence,  which,  as  we  have  shown  from 
many  other  sources,  cannot  possibly  be  admitted. 
Dr.  Oxenham  would  have  had  S.  Augustine,  in  his 
controversy  with  the  Donatists,  use  no  other  argu- 
ment to  convince  them  of  their  schism,  but  merely 
tell  them  that  the  Bishop  of  Home  was  supreme  and 
infallible ; and  Dr.  Oxenham  does  not  hesitate  te 
assert  that  had  S.  Augustine  “ been  acquainted  with 
this  one  conclusive  argument,”  he  “ might  have 
saved  himself  the  labour  of  writing  seventy  - five 
chapters,  urging  all  sorts  of  other  arguments ; they 
were  all  mere  waste  of  time  and  trouble. As  a 
matter  of  fact,  S.  Augustine,  throughout  his  contro- 
versy with  the  Donatists,  did  appeal  to  the  judgment 
of  Pope  Melchiades,  and  he  calls  it  “the  judgment 
of  the  Homan  Bishop  Melchiades,  by  which  Caecil- 
ianus  was  purged  and  absolved.”^  Because  Melchi- 
ades had  said — “I  decide  that  he  (Caecilianus) 


1 Ep.  176,  Migne  P.L.  ^ Page  71. 
3 Ad  Donat,  post  Collat.  lib.  unus. 


TEADITION 


91 


should  deservedly  be  kept  in  bis  ecclesiastical  com- 
munion, bis  status  being  unimpaired.”^  And  S. 
Augustine  calls  it  “a  final  sentence  issued  by  tbe 
blessed  Melcbiades.”^  Moreover,  be  tells  tbe  Donar 
tists  that  Constantine  committed  tbe  question  to  be 
discussed  and  terminated  by  bishops,  “wbicb  also 
was  done  in  tbe  city  of  Rome  under  tbe  presidency 
of  Melcbiades,  tbe  Bisbop  of  tfliat  Cburcb,  with 
many  of  bis  colleagues.”  Hence,  tbougb  tbe  judg- 
ment was  a joint  sentence,  it  is  described  by  S. 
Augustine  as  tbe  judgment  of  Melcbiades.  Had 
tbe  mere  assertion  of  Papal  claims  sufficed  as  a 
conclusive  argument  in  tbe  eyes  of  tbe  Donatists, 
no  doubt  S.  Augustine  would  bave  gone  no  further, 
nor  would  tbe  Donatists,  nor  any  other  heretics  and 
schismatics,  have  ever  rebelled  against  tbe  Cburcb, 
if  such  a simple  proceeding  bad  been  enough  to 
convince  them  of  their  error  and  bring  them  to 
submission.  No  wonder  that  Protestants  who,  like 
Dr.  Oxenbam,  bave  such  a mistaken  conception  of 
the  Pope’s  supremacy  and  infallibility,  and  tbe 
manner  in  which  such  prerogatives  are  exercised, 
no  wonder,  I say,  that  they  should  imagine  that 
Catholics  cannot  think,  nor  reason,  nor  argue  upon 
any  point  of  religious  controversy,  simply  because 
they  believe  in  tbe  special  authority  and  infallible 
teaching  of  tbe  See  of  Peter. 

As  to  tbe  historical  parallel,  of  which  Dr.  Oxen- 


^ Optat.  c.  Parmen,  lib.  1. 


2 Ep.  43,  al.  162. 


92 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


ham  speaks  on  page  73  of  his  book,  a parallel  be- 
tween Imperial  and  Christian  Rome,  it  is  based  upon 
an  assumption  which  he  has  yet  to  prove,  and  in 
the  light  of  the  Scriptural  texts,  and  of  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  we  cannot  take  it  seriously.  The 
learned  writer.  Dr.  Salmon,  whose  opinions  appear 
to  be  all  but  infallible  in  Dr.  Oxenham’s  eyes,  asserts 
a great  deal,  but  he  proves  little  or  nothing  in  the 
aforesaid  parallel.  Undoubtedly,  we  may  see  in  the 
fact  of  S.  Peter’s  Chair  having  been  established  in 
Rome,  the  imperial  city,  and  the  great  centre  of  the 
political  world,  a very  remarkable  disposition  of 
Providence,  and  one  which  further  enhances  the 
dignity  of  the  Apostolic  See.  But  to  conclude  that 
the  authority  of  that  See  owes  its  origin  to  the 
imperial  dignity  of  the  centre  of  civil  power,  is  to 
ignore  the  evidence  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the 
teaching  of  the  Fathers,  and  to  beg  the  whole  ques- 
tion. Post  hoc,  ergo  'pro'pter  hoc  is  a time  - worn 
fallacy,  and  because  two  events  follow  one  upon 
another  in  the  order  of  time,  or  are  in  some  way 
connected,  that  does  not  justify  the  conclusion  that 
one  is  the  origin  and  cause  of  the  other,  especially 
when  there  is  so  much  evidence  to  prove  that  they 
were  derived  from  totally  different  sources.  One 
might  as  well  argue  that  Christianity  owes  its 
origin  to  paganism,  because  our  obelisks,  with  the 
Cross  above  them,  have  now  become  Christian 
monuments. 


S.  VICTOR 


93 


(n.) 

S.  Yictoe  and  the  Eastern  Churches 

The  short  account  given  us  by  Dr.  Oxenham  of 
the  main  facts  concerning  the  disputes  which  arose 
at  the  end  of  the  second  century  between  the  Pope, 
S.  Victor,  and  some  of  the  Eastern  Bishops  (for  they 
were  only  in  a minority)  is  fairly  accurate,  though  he 
misrepresents  several  of  the  circumstances,  and  fails 
to  see  that  he  is  admitting  that,  after  all,  there  was 
not  the  great  silence  on  the  part  of  the  Homan 
Bishops,  of  which  he  spoke  in  the  preceding  pages. 
The  disagreement  as  to  the  proper  time  for  cele- 
brating the  Easter  Festival,  reached  an  acute  stage 
in  the  time  of  S.  Victor,  and  Eusebius,  whom  Dr. 
Oxenham  quotes,  does  not  tell  us  that  S.  Victor 
actually  went  the  length  of  finally  excommuni- 
cating those  who  did  not  conform  to  the  prevailing 
custom,  but  that  he  made  the  endeavour  ” 
(TTctparat.)  We  have  not  S.  Victor’s  words,  and 
therefore  we  cannot  possibly  say  when  the  announce- 
ment of  his  intention  was  actually  to  come  into 
force.  And  we  need  hardly  remark  that  the  subject 
of  contention  was  not  one  of  faith  or  of  morals,  but 
one  of  discipline.  Some  of  the  Eastern  Bishops 
addressed  an  entreaty  to  Pope  Victor,  “exhorting 
him,”  as  Eusebius  says,  and  Polycrates,  the  Bishop  of 
Ephesus,  and  others  did  so  with  considerable 
bitterness.  Why  be  so  concerned  at  S.  Victor’s 


94 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


attitude,  and  only  exhort  him,  instead  of  address- 
ing other  Bishops,  were  it  not  that  what  he  said  and 
did  was  of  such  supreme  importance?  There  is  no 
truth  in  Dr.  Oxenham’s  statement  to  the  effect  that 
S.  Irenaeus  reproved  Victor  “ for  assuming  authority 
over  the  Easterns  to  which  he  had  no  right.”^  S. 
Irenaeus,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  teaches  most 
emphatically  that  the  authority  of  the  See  of  Borne 
extends  over  all  other  Churches,  as  even  Benan 
admits.  In  the  case  before  us,  he  acted  as  mediator. 
He  pointed  out  to  S.  Victor  the  evil  results  which 
were  likely  to  ensue  if  the  threats  were  carried  out, 
and  he  feared  that  a schism  might  be  the  consequence 
of  S.  Victor’s  excessive  severity.  He  recommended 
a milder  course,  and  respectfully  advocated  that 
whole  churches  should  not  be  cut  off.”  Hence  he 
fully  acknowledged  S.  Victor’s  authority,  and  he 
never  suggested  a doubt  as  to  his  right  of  exercising 
it  over  the  Easterns,  but  he  begged  him  not  to  use 
it  in  such  a way ; and  the  fact  that  S.  Irenaeus  and 
other  Bishops  were  so  anxious  that  the  Pope  should 
not  make  use  of  his  supreme  authority  in  that  severe 
manner,  points  clearly  to  the  acknowledged  existence 
of  Papal  prerogatives.  S.  Victor  acted  in  conformity 
with  this  advice,  and  the  final  result,  as  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham  is  aware,  was  that  the  Eastern  Churches 
accepted  the  Boman  and  universal  observance.  Had 
some  of  the  Eastern  communities  not  done  so,  and 


iPage  77. 


S.  CYPRIAN 


95 


if  S.  Victor  had  actually  cut  them  off,  they  would 
have  placed  themselves  in  schism  against  his  legiti- 
mate authority,  wisely  or  unwisely  exercised,  as  the 
case  may  be.  But  even  in  that  hypothesis,  nothing 
could  be  proved  against  their  recognition  of  the 
supremacy  or  infallibility  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome. 


(III.) 

S.  Stephen  and  S.  Cyprian 

It  would  be  impossible,  within  the  limit  of  these 
pages,  to  deal  fully  with  the  well-known  disagree- 
ment between  S.  Cyprian  and  Pope  Stephen  in  regard 
to  the  custom,  upheld  by  S.  Cyprian,  of  rebaptising 
those  who  had  been  baptised  by  heretics.  The  sub- 
ject would  indeed  demand  a special  essay  to  discuss 
it  thoroughly.  Dr.  Oxenham  raises  this  great  his- 
torical question  in  order  to  use  it  against  Papal 
claims,  but  he  finds  it  possible  to  discuss  it  in  two 
pages  of  his  little  book,  and  then  to  draw  far-reach- 
ing conclusions.  We  cannot  follow  his  method  of 
thus  taking  an  unfair  advantage  of  our  readers.  We 
would  therefore  urge  them,  if  they  wish  to  become 
acquainted  with  the  sequence  of  events  of  that  in- 
tricate period,  and  its  available  evidence,  to  refer 
to  the  standard  works  that  have  been  published 
on  the  subject.^  For  the  purpose  of  our  present 

^ See  for  instance,  The  Hist,  of  the  Church,  by  Hergenroether, 
n.  193;  The  Primitive  Church  and  the  See  of  Rome,  by  Luke 
Rivington,  pages  47-116. 


96 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


argument,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  point  out  that  S. 
Cyprian,  like  the  other  Fathers  of  the  Church,  cer- 
tainly taught  the  supremacy  and  prerogatives  of  S. 
Peter  and  of  his  successors,  and  that  he  acted  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  belief,  notwithstanding  his  angry 
words  at  the  time  of  his  disagreement  with  Pope 
Stephen,  not  long  before  both  he  and  that  Pontiff 
won  the  martyr’s  crown. 

And  first  as  to  his  teaching.  In  two  letters  which 
he  addressed  to  Pope  Cornelius,  S.  Cyprian  writes 
that  the  Roman  Church  “ is  the  root  and  mother  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  the  Chair  of  Peter  and  the 
principal  Church,  whence  sacerdotal  unity  has  its 
source.”^  In  another  epistle  to  the  same  Pope,  he 
says  : — “To  be  in  communion  with  Cornelius  (Pope) 
is  to  be  in  communion  with  the  Catholic  Church.”^ 
And  again,  in  his  celebrated  treatise  on  the  Unity 
of  the  Church,  S.  Cyprian  declares: — The  following 
is  a short  and  easy  proof  of  the  faith.  The  Lord 
said  to  Peter,  I say  to  thee  thou  art  Peter ; upon  one 
alone  He  buildeth  His  Church ; and  although  after 
His  Resurrection  He  gives  a similar  power  to  all  the 
Apostles,  and  says: — As  the  Father  hath  sent  Me, 
etc.,  nevertheless,  in  order  to  make  unity  clear, 
by  His  own  authority  He  laid  down  the  source  of 
that  unity  as  beginning  from  one.  Certainly,  the 
other  Apostles  also  were  what  Peter  was,  endowed 
with  an  equal  fellowship  both  of  honour  and  of 


^ Ep.  48  and  49,  ad  Corn. 


2 Ep.  55. 


S.  CYPRIAN 


97 


power,  hid  the  commencement  proceeds  from  unity, 
that  the  Church  of  Christ  may  be  set  forth  as  one.”^ 
Other  similar  texts  may  be  quoted  from  the  writings 
of  S.  Cyprian,  but  what  he  says  in  this  treatise  is 
all  the  more  significant  since  he  is  dealing  with  the 
subject  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  from  a special - 
point  of  view,  and  in  order  to  show  forth  more  par- 
ticularly the  rights  of  the  bishops  over  the  laity, 
and  the  necessity  of  union  between  each  flock  and 
its  own  pastor,  so  that  his  line  of  argument  did  not 
lead  him  to  dwell  at  length  upon  the  prerogatives  of 
the  mother  - Church.  And  yet  he  speaks  so  dis- 
tinctly, and  he  explains  on  the  same  principle  as 
we  have  done  in  these  pages,  the  relationship  of  the 
Apostles  to  S.  Peter,  their  Prince  and  Head.  In  con- 
formity with  this  teaching,  S.  Cyprian  mentions 
Cornelius  Bishop  of  Pome  being  appointed  “ when 
the  place  of  Peter,  and  the  rank  of  the  sacerdotal 
chair  was  vacant.”  Hr.  Oxenham  will  not  find  S. 
Cyprian  using  such  expressions  in  connection  witli 
any  other  Bishop,  or  any  other  see,  throughout  the 
world. 

Next,  as  to  S.  Cyprian’s  manner  of  acting. 
See  how  even  when  the  “ place  of  Peter  ” was  vacant, 
after  the  death  of  Fabian,  S.  Cyprian  far  from  resent- 
ing a letter  addressed  to  him  by  the  Poman  clergy, 
who  were  not  satisfied  with  the  reports  that  had 
reached  them  of  S.  Cyprian’s  line  of  conduct,  writes 


^ De  Unit.  n.  4. 
G 


98 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


to  them  in  reply : “ I have  thought  it  necessary  to 
write  this  letter  to  you,  wherein  an  account  might 
he  given  to  you  of  my  acts,  discipline,  and  dili- 
gence/’^ Why  did  S.  Cyprian  submit  his  case  to 
Rome,  even  when  the  see  was  vacant,  if  not  because 
he  turned  naturally  to  Rome  as  the  centre  of  autho- 
rity, and  because  he  thought,  as  he  himself  said, 
that  the  Romans  are  they  to  whom  faithlessness 
can  have  no  access  ” Then  again  S.  Cyprian 
appeals  to  Rome  against  a band  of  schismatics  who 
had  ventured  to  go  there  to  urge  their  case,  they 
themselves,  too,  giving  testimony  in  this  way  to  the 
supremacy  of  that  see,  and  he  writes : “ Having  had 
a pseudo-bishop  ordained  for  them  by  heretics,  they 
dare  to  set  sail  and  to  carry  letters  from  schismatic 
and  profane  persons  to  the  chair  of  Peter  and  the 
principal  Church,  whence  the  unity  of  the  priest- 
hood has  taken  its  rise.”^  He  appeals  once  more 
to  the  Pope  in  order  that  the  latter  should  excom- 
municate Marcian,  Bishop  of  Arles,  because  he  had 
joined  Novatian,  urging  the  Pontiff  to  write  ‘^letters 
of  plenary  authority.”  And  let  the  reader  take  note, 
the  Pope  was  S.  Stephen,  the  same  Pontiff  with 
whom  S.  Cyprian  had  his  disagreement,  and  in  that 
very  disagreement,  S.  Cyprian  appeals  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Roman  Pontiff  by  sending  him  the  acts 
of  his  Council,  much  as  that  judgment  displeased 
him  when  it  was  uttered.  So  that  when  Dr. 


1 Ep.  20. 


2Ep.  59. 


S.  CYPRIAN 


99 


Oxenham  declares  tliat  “ S.  Cyprian  and  all  tlie 
African  Bishops  declined  to  admit  the  autho- 
rity claimed  by  S.  Stephen,”  he  goes  far  beyond 
the  mark. 

Strangely  enough,  Dr.  Oxenham  also  informs  us 
that,  “ Whether  S.  Cyprian  was  right  as  to  the  par- 
ticular point  in  dispute  between  himself  and  the 
Pope  is  quite  immaterial.”^  Yet,  one  would  have 
thought  that  in  argument  against  the  supremacy  and 
infallibility  of  the  Pope,  the  question  of  who  was 
right  in  the  controversy  was  of  paramount  import- 
ance. And  S.  Stephen  was  right,  as  Dr.  Oxenham 
well  knows.  S.  Yincent  of  Lerins,  whose  authority 
even  Anglicans  are  ready  to  admit,  speaks  of  S. 
Stephen  as  “ a holy  and  prudent  man,”  and  referring 
to  the  famous  dispute,  he  says : “ When  therefore 
they  all  from  every  side  cried  out  against  the  novelty 
of  the  thing,  and  all  the  bishops  all  around  began 
to  resist  it,  each  according  to  his  own  zeal,  then 
Pope  Stephen,  Prelate  of  the  Apostolic  See,  together 
with  his  colleagues,  but  beyond  the  rest,  withstood, 
thinking,  as  I presume,  that  it  would  be  proper  if  he 
excelled  all  the  rest  in  devotion  of  faith,  as  much 
as  he  surpassed  them  in  authority  of  place. 
What  then  was  the  upshot  of  the  whole 
business  ? What  but  the  usual  and  customary 
issue.  Antiquity  was  retained,  novelty  exploded.”^ 
And  it  was  the  Pope  who  guarded  the  traditional 


ipage  79. 


2 Comm.  9. 


100 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


teaching  of  antiquity,  even  against  such  an  eminent 
man  as  S.  Cyprian. 

The  Council  of  which  Dr.  Oxenham  speaks  on  page 
79  of  his  hook  took  place  in  September,  256  a.d.  Pope 
Stephen  died  in  257  a.d.,  and  S.  Cyprian  the  following 
year,  both  of  them  martyrs.  The  whole  discussion 
came  to  an  end  in  the  time  of  S.  Augustine,  and 
Pope  Stephen’s  reply  to  S.  Cyprian  remained  as  the 
law  of  the  Universal  Church.  S.  Augustine  assures 
us  that  ‘‘  peace  was  preserved  in  all  essentials  ” be- 
tween S.  Stephen  and  S.  Cyprian,  and  that  the  latter 
did  not  separate  himself  from  the  Pope  because  he 
was  not  a “ son  of  perdition.”^  S.  Augustine  sums 
up  his  judgment  of  the  whole  case  in  opposition  to 
Dr.  Oxenham,  and  suggests  that  either  the  Donatists 
forged  the  documents,  as  they  were  wont  to  do,  and 
that  S.  Cyprian  did  not  say  what  is  attributed  to 
him,  or  that  S.  Cyprian,  like  the  other  Bishops,  cor- 
rected his  mistake,  or,  again,  that  his  great  persever- 
ance in  clinging  to  the  unity  of  the  Church  covered 
the  blot.  “ Moreover,”  writes  S.  Augustine,  there 
is  this,  that,  as  a most  fruitful  bough,  the  Father 
purged  away  whatever  there  was  in  him  to  be  blotted 
out,  by  the  sickle  of  his  martyrdom. ”2 

What  conclusion,  then,  can  be  drawn  from  all  this 
which  in  any  way  destroys  the  doctrine  of  the 
supremacy  and  infallibility  of  Peter’s  successors? 
The  Church  was  founded  upon  the  Rock,  not  upon 


^ Lib.  De  Bapt.  1-18. 


2 Ep.  93  ad  Vincent. 


S.  lEENAEUS 


101 


S.  Cyprian,  as  lie  himself  had  taught,  and  if  S. 
Cyprian,  after  acting  wrongly,  had  separated  himself 
from  the  centre  of  unity,  S.  Cyprian  would  have 
gone,  and  he  would  have  lost  the  glory  which  is  his ; 
hut  the  Church  of  Christ,  with  Peter  as  its  founda- 
tion, would  have  remained,  as  it  remains  to-day. 


(IV.) 

The  Text  of  S.  Ieenaeus 

1.  We  give  elsewhere  the  translation  of  the  whole 
text  of  S.  Irenaeus,  with  the  passages  that  precede 
and  follow  the  portion  quoted  in  Latin^  by  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham  (p.  83).  It  will  be  sufficient  here  to  give  that 
part  of  it  with  which  we  are  chiefly  concerned.  S. 
Irenaeus  writes  as  follows : — “ But  as  it  would  be  a 
very  long  task  to  enumerate,  in  such  a volume  as 
this,  the  successions  of  all  the  Churches;  pointing 
out  that  tradition  which  the  greatest  and  most 
ancient,  and  universally  known.  Church  of  Rome — 


^ “ Traditionem  itaque  Apostolorum  in  toto  mundo  manifestam, 
in  Omni  Ecclesia  adest  respicere  omnibus  qui  vera  velint  videre:  et 
habemus  annumerare  eos  qui  ab  Apostolis  instituti  sunt  Episcopi  in 
Ecclesiis,  et  successores  eorum  usque  ad  nos,  qui  nihil  tale  docuerunt, 
neque  cognoverunt  quale  ab  his  deliratur.  Etenim  si  recondita 
mysteria  scissent  Apostoli,  quae  seorsum  et  latenter  ab  reliquis 
perfectos  docebant,  his  vel  maxime  traderent  ea  quibus  etiam 
ipsas  Ecclesias  committebant.  Valde  enim  perfectos  et  irreprehensi- 
biles  in  omnibus  eos  volebant  esse,  quos  et  successores  relinquebant, 
suuin  ipsorum  locum  magisterii  tradentes : quibus  emendate  egentibus 
fieret  magna  utilitas,  lapsis  autem  summa  calamitas.  Sed  quoniam 
valde  longum  est  in  hoc  tale  volumine  omnium  Ecclesiarum 


102 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


founded  by  the  two  most  glorious  Apostles  Peter  and 
Paul — derives  from  tbe  Apostles,  and  that  faith 
announced  to  all  men,  which  through  the  succession 
of  (her)  bishops  has  come  down  to  us,  we  confound 
all  those  who  in  any  way,  whether  through  self- 
complacency  or  vain-glory,  or  blindness  and  perverse 
opinions,  assemble  otherwise  than  as  behoveth  them. 
Foe  to  this  Chuech,  on  account  of  moee  potent 

PEINCIPALITY  [OE  PEE-EMINENT  AUTHOEITy],  IT  IS 
NECESSAEY  THAT  EVEEY  ChUECH,  THAT  IS,  THOSE  WHO 
AEE  ON  EVEEY  SIDE  FAITHFUL,  EESOET  [SHOULD  BE 

IN  concoed],  in  which  (Chuech)  evee,  by  those  who 

AEE  ON  EVEEY  SIDE,  HAS  BEEN  PEESEEVED  THAT  TEADI- 
TiON  WHICH  IS  FEOM  Apostles.”  Thus  Writes  S. 
Irenaeus  in  the  second  century,  and  this  famous  text 
is  constantly  quoted,  either  in  its  entirety  or  in  part, 
as  bearing  testimony  to  the  supremacy  and  infalli- 
bility of  the  See  of  Pome. 

Commenting  upon  it,  however.  Dr.  Oxenham 
asserts  that  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  he  (Irenaeus) 
said  anything  at  all  about  the  authority  of  the  Church 


enumerare  successiones,  maximae,  et  antiquissimae,  et  omnibus 
cognitae,  a gloriosissimis  duobus  Apostolis  Petro  et  Paulo  Romae 
fundatae  et  constitutae  Ecclesiae,  earn  quam  habet  ab  Apostolis 
traditionem,  et  anuuntiatam  liominibus  fidem,  per  successiones  Epis- 
coporum  pervenientem  usque  ad  nos  indicantes,  confundimus  omnes 
eos,  qui  quoquo  modo,  vel  per  sibi  placentia,  vel  vanam  gloriam,  vel 
per  caecitatem  et  malam  sententiam,  praeterquam  oportet  colligunt. 
Ad  banc  enim  Ecclesiam  propter  potiorem  [or,  potentiorem]  prin- 
cipalitatem  necesse  est  omnem  convenire  Ecclesiam,  hoc  est,  eos  qui 
sunt  undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper  ab  his,  qui  sunt  undique,  con- 
servata  est  ea  quae  ab  Apostolis  traditio.”  S.  Irenaeus,  Contra 
Hcereses,  liber  iii.,  cap.  iii.,  §§  1 and  2.  Ed.  Benedict.  Paris,  1710. 


S.  IRENAEUS 


103 


of  Rome — his  words  seem  most  probably  to  refer  to 
the  City  of  Rome,  not  to  the  Church  ” ; ^ f)r.  Oxenham 
does  not  add  a word  to  prove  his  statement  that  when 
Irenaeus  said  Church  ’’  he  most  probably  meant 

City.”  We  have  seen  that  Renan  himself  did  not 
venture  upon  such  a misrepresentation  of  the  text, 
and  we  may  dismiss  the  matter  by  just  reminding 
Dr.  Oxenham  that  Mr.  Puller,  whose  authority  he 
so  often  quotes,  in  spite  of  all  that  he  had  written  on 
the  point,  is  now  compelled  to  give  up  the  interpreta- 
tion to  which  Dr.  Oxenham  so  fondly  clings. 

2.  Leo  XIII.,  in  his  Encyclical,  quotes  a portion  of 
the  last  sentence  of  the  text  of  S.  Irenaeus,  and  in 
the  authorised  English  translation  it  is  given  thus : 
“ With  this  Church,  on  account  of  its  pre-eminent 
authority,  it  is  necessary  that  every  Church  should 
be  in  concord.”^  Dr.  Oxenham  objects  to  the  expres- 
sion should  be  in  concord,”  and  prefers  the 
reading  to  resort  to.”  In  support  of  this 
translation  of  the  words  convenire  ad,  he  re- 
fers us  to  the  Latin  edition  of  the  Bible, 
which  is  irrelevant,  for  we  are  not  discussing 
terms  used  in  Scripture,  nor  are  we  dealing  with  the 
classics.  Consequently,  we  must  translate  the  words 
in  keeping  with  the  context ; and,  considering  that 
S.  Irenaeus  is  speaking  of  the  “ necessity  ” of  every 
Church  resorting  to  Rome  in  order  to  preserve  the 
“ faith  and  tradition  of  the  Apostles,”  surely  the 


^ Satis  cog.  page  43. 


104 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


translation,  ‘‘  should  be  in  concord,”  is  perfectly 
legitimate.  But  since  Dr.  Oxenbam  prefers  the  ex- 
pression, ‘‘  to  resort  to,”  let  us  accept  it.  The  differ- 
ence in  the  present  instance  is  of  minor  consequence, 
for  the  argument  remains  the  same.  What  does 
Dr.  Oxenham  imagine  that  S.  Irenaeus  meant  by 
resorting  to  Rome  ” ? He  could  not  intend  that 
every  Church  throughout  the  world  was  to  resort  to 
Rome  as  the  centre  of  trade  or  as  a seat  of  political 
government  and  civil  power,  for  he  speaks  of  the 
necessity  of  every  Church  doing  so  in  order  to  pre- 
serve the  faith  and  tradition  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
reason  that  he  gives  is,  “ because  of  the  more  potent 
(or  pre-eminent)  authority”  of  the  See  of  Rome. 
We  are  no  nearer  Dr.  Oxenham’s  conclusion, 
even  if  we  accept  the  different  translation  of 
‘‘  convenire  ad,”  or  if  we  substitute  “ princi- 
pality ” for  authority.”  His  own  comment 
seems  to  imply  this,  for  on  page  85  of  his 
book  he  writes : “ The  witness  to  the  true  faith, 
which  may  be  found  in  the  Church  of  Rome  as  a 
prominent  sample  of  an  Apostolic  Church,  will,  S. 
Irenaeus  thinks,  confound  and  confute  all  those  who 
have  gone  astray  after  new  and  unauthorised 
doctrines.”  Yes,  but  according  to  S.  Irenaeus  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  not  only  a 'prominent  sample  of  an 
Apostolic  Church,  but  the  most  prominent  sample  of 
the  pre-eminently  Apostolic  Church  to  which  “ it  is 
necessary  ” that  the  faithful  on  every  side  should 
resort  on  account  of  more  potent  principality  or 


S.  lEENAEUS 


105 


authority.  Dr.  Oxenham  adds  that  the  importance 
of  the  witness  borne  by  the  Church  of  Home  is  not 
stated  to  consist  in  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.’’^  But  has  he  forgotten  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  entrusted  to  the  Bishops  the  task  of 
teaching  and  of  guarding  the  true  faith,  and  that 
the  Bishop  is  in  the  Church  and  the  Church  in  the 
Bishop  ? Moreover,  the  text  distinctly  tells  us  that 
the  faith  of  Rome  was  “ announced  to  all  men,  which 
through  the  succession  of  (her)  Bishops  has  come 
down  to  us,”  and  S.  Irenaeus  proceeds  at  once  to 
give  us  the  list  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  from  the  time 
of  the  Apostles,  mentioning  them  by  name  and  in 
order  of  time.  How  can  Dr.  Oxenham  presume  to 
state  that  “ Irenaeus,  indeed,  says  nothing  about  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  ; he  speaks  of  ‘ the  Church  ’ ; but 
it  consists,  he  says,  in  the  fact  that  the  Roman  Church 
was  one  of  those  Churches,  and  there  were  several, 
which  had  an  unbroken  succession  of  Bishops  and 
an  unbroken  tradition  of  faith. Now,  a glance  at 
the  text  will  show  that  Irenaeus  places  the  Roman 
Church,  and  therefore  the  Bishop  of  that  Church, 
on  a totally  different  footing  to  all  other  Churches, 
and  that  Dr.  Oxenham  is  simply  misrepresenting  S. 
Irenaeus,  who  did  not  speak  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
as  merely  “ one  ” of  many  equal  Churches.  And 
yet  Dr.  Oxenham  hurls  at  Pope  Leo  XIII.  the 
accusation  of  having  “ deliberately  falsified  the 
testimony  of  S.  Irenaeus.”^ 


^ Page  85. 


2 Page  85. 


Pages  82-85. 


106 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


3.  After  tlius  wantonly  insulting  the  venerable 
Pontiff,  Dr.  Oxenham  sets  us  several  questions  to 
answer.  The  task  is  a very  simple  one,  and  we 
will  take  the  points  as  they  are  given.  (1)  “Why 
tell  the  heretics  that  they  might  appeal  to  any  one  of 
the  several  ‘ Apostolic  Churches  ’ which  had  the 
succession  and  tradition  of  faith,  if  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  the  only  one  which  had  conclusive  autho- 
rity ? ” — Because,  besides  the  Church  to  which  it  was 
“ necessary  ’’  that  every  Church  throughout  the 
world  should  resort,  according  to  S.  Irenaeus,  on 
account  of  her  pre-eminent  position  and  authority, 
there  were  other  Churches,  which  had  not  that 
position,  but  whose  orthodoxy  and  tradition  were 
as  yet  unsullied  by  error.  And  such  Churches  might 
be  appealed  to,  according  to  S.  Irenaeus,  as  an 
additional  argument.  (2)  “ Why  insist,  as 

Irenaeus  does,  that  it  was  the  unbroken  suc- 
cession of  their  Bishops,  and  the  unbroken  tra- 
dition of  their  faith,  which  guaranteed  the  teach- 
ing of  all  these  Apostolic  Churches?  Why  give 
this  misleading  reason  if  the  one  true  and  sufficient 
reason  was  the  assured  infallibility  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  ? ” — Because  it  was  not  misleading  at  all,  but 
another  argument  in  behalf  of  the  same  teaching, 
and  perfectly  consistent  with  what  S.  Irenaeus  had 
said  before,  precisely  because  those  other  Churches 
were  in  communion  with  the  more  potent  ’’  See  of 
Rome,  and  testified  to  the  same  truth.  (3)  “Why 
go  on,  as  S.  Irenaeus  does  in  the  paragraph  follow- 


S.  lEENAEUS 


107 


ing  tlie  one  which  we  are  considering,  to  appeal  to 
the  Church  of  Smyrna,  to  enumerate  the  Bishops 
of  that  Church,  and  call  attention  to  the  importance 
of  its  tradition  as  coming  down  from  the  Apostle  S. 
John?”^ — For  the  same  reason,  namely,  to  show 
forth,  as  further  proof,  the  uniformity  of  the  Apos- 
tolic faith  and  tradition,  -which  all  the  Apostles 
taught,  and  which,  as  a matter  of  f act ^ was  still  pre- 
served in  those  important  Churches ; just  on  the 
same  principle  as  Leo  XIII.  reminds  us  of  the  faith 
and  tradition  of  Catholic  England  before  the  Kefor- 
mation,  whilst  asseiting  at  the  same  time  the  supre- 
macy and  infallibility  of  the  See  of  Rome.  Xor  is 
it  true  that  in  that  paragraph  S.  Irenaeus  enume- 
rates the  Bishops  of  Smyrna,  though  undoubtedly  he 
could  do  so.  Polycarp  alone  is  mentioned  by  him, 
whereas  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are  fully  enumer- 
ated. Apparently  Dr.  Oxenham  does  not  allow 
S.  Irenaeus  to  pat  forward  several  arguments  in  sup- 
port of  his  teaching,  if  he  gives  one  that  is  con- 
clusive. This  strange  theory  would  be  fatal  to  the 
writings  of  any  author  upon  any  subject.  Dr. 
Oxenham  himself  gives  us  arguments  in  his  book, 
which  he  describes  as  conclusive,  and  yet  he  does 
not  hesitate  to  suggest  many  others. 

4.  We  cannot  conclude  this  paragraph  without 
a word  upon  what  we  might  call  the  climax  of  Dr, 
Oxenham’s  venture.  He  does  nothing  less  than 


1 Page  87. 


108 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


accuse  Leo  XIII.  of  mistranslating  and  suppressing 
tlie  text  of  S.  Irenaeus.  And  these  are  his  words : — 
''  Accordingly,  some  Roman  writers,  and  we  regret 
to  fiad  the  present  Pope  among  the  number,  quote 
the  first  half  of  the  sentence,  translating  it  so  as  to 
suit  their  purpose,  and  suppress  the  other  half. 
(Most  remarkable,  says  the  Pope,  is  the  testimony 
of  S.  Irenaeus,  who,  referring  to  the  Roman  Church, 
says : ‘ With  this  Church,  on  account  of  its  pre- 
eminent authority,  it  is  necessary  that  every  Church 
should  be  in  concord,’  and  there  the  Pope  stops,  in 
the  middle  of  the  sentence,  which  goes  on  thus : ‘ in 
which  Church  the  tradition,  which  comes  down  from 
the  Apostles,  is  always  preserved  hy  means  of  those 
ivho  come  thither  from  all  fartsJ — A more  daring 
attempt  to  travesty  the  truth  could  hardly  be  con- 
ceived.” Dr.  Oxenham  gives  us  two  translations  of 
the  text  under  consideration.  Let  us  place  them 
side  by  side. 


On  page  84. 

“To  this  Church  (of  Rome), 
because  of  its  more  influential 
principality,  every  Church, 
that  is,  the  faithful  from  all 
parts,  must  resort,  and  in  it 
the  tradition  which  is  from 
the  Apostles  is  preserved  hy 
those  who  come  from  every 
quarter.” 


On  page  89. 


“in  which  Church  the  tra- 
dition, which  comes  down 
from  the  Apostles,  is  always 
preserved  hy  means  of  those 
who  come  thither  from  all 
parts.” 


Dr.  Oxenham  interpolates  the  text  in  his  second 
translation,  and  adds  the  expression  “ by  means  of,” 
which  does  not  appear  in  the  first  instance.  After 


S.  lEENAEUS 


109 


accomplishing  this  not  very  creditable  performance, 
he  tells  us  that  the  Pope  “ suppresses  ” the  evidence. 
I refrain  from  qualifying  such  a proceeding,  and  I 
will  only  point  out : (1)  that  the  authentic  text  does 
not  warrant  the  translation  “ by  means  of  ” as  render- 
ing the  Latin  words  “ ah  his  ” in  the  context,  and 
that,  without  in  the  slightest  degree  suppressing  the 
evidence,  the  Pope  could  quote  the  first  part  of  the 
sentence  without  the  second  if  he  so  pleased;  (2) 
that  Dr.  Oxenham’s  second  translation  introduces  a 
contradiction  which  is  inadmissible  in  the  reasoning 
of  S.  Irenaeus.  For  it  would  imply  that  S.  Irenaeus 
tells  us,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  faithful  from  all 
parts  must  resort  to  Pome  on  account  of  her  pre-emi- 
nent authority,  or  principality,  in  order  that  they  might 
preserve  the  true  faith  and  tradition  of  the  Apostles ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  he  would  tell  us  that  all  the 
faithful  are  to  maintain  the  true  faith  and  tradition 
by  means  of  themselves^  and  therefore  not  by  resort- 
ing to  the  pre-eminent  Church  of  Rome.  How  can 
such  an  interpretation  be  entertained  for  a moment? 
If,  as  Dr.  Oxenham  asserts,  every  Church  was  to 
resort  to  Rome,  ‘‘  so  that  what  was  taught  in  Rome 
was  continually  being  tested  by  comparison  with 
what  was  taught  in  other  Churches,”^  then,  contrari- 
wise, the  Church  of  Rome  would  be  resorting  to  other 
Churches,  not  those  Churches  to  Rome:  the  more 
powerful  principality,  authority,  pre-eminence,  or 


^ Page  89. 


110 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


even  influence  would  cease  to  be,  the  “ necessity  ” of 
resorting  to  Lome  would  not  exist,  and  the  whole 
meaning  of  the  passage  written  by  S.  Irenaeus  would 
vanish. 


PALT  y. 

Councils  of  the  Church 

A FEW  remarks  upon  the  Councils  of  the  Church, 
their  utility,  and  their  connection  with  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Loman  Pontiff,  will  not  be  out  of 
place  here,  and  will  enable  us  to  point  out  the  mis- 
taken theories  which  are  advanced  by  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham  at  the  end  of  his  book.  For  he  would  have 
us  believe  that  “if  the  Popes  are,  and  always  have 
heen,  what  the  Vatican  Council  asserts  that  they 
are,  then  all  these  great  Church  Councils,  summoned 
to  decide  on  questions  of  faith, — all  of  them,  includ- 
ing the  Vatican  Council  itself,  were  enprely  need- 
less, an  enormous  waste  of  time.”^  And  Dr.  Oxen- 
ham  concludes  that : “ It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say 
that  the  very  existence  of  General  Councils,  called 
as  they  were,  to  decide  disputes  as  to  matters  of  faith, 
is  of  itself  an  open  and  evident  contradiction  of  Papal 
claims,  as  they  are  now  made.  And  that  contradic- 
tion becomes  more  express  and  emphatic  when  we 
come  to  see  what  those  Councils  did  when  they  had 


COUNCILS 


111 


to  deal  with,  the  position  and  claims  of  the  Bishops 
of  B/ome.”^  Now,  this  manner  of  arguing  is  based 
once  more  upon  the  fallacy  which  has  served  Dr. 
Oxenham  in  good  stead  on  previous  occasions,  and  by 
which  he  makes  it  clear  that  he  has  a mistaken  con- 
ception of  the  Catholic  teaching  regarding  the 
supremacy  and  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  and 
that  he  cannot  distinguish  between  the  existence  of 
those  prerogatives  and  the  manner  of  using  them  in 
the  government  of  the  Church. 

We  may  sum  up  the  Catholic  position  in  the  follow- 
ing way: — (1)  If  the  prerogatives  of  S.  Peter  and  of 
his  successors  are  established,  as  we  hold  that  they 
are,  by  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the 
Fathers,  no  Council  can  be  truly  (Ecumenical,  that 
is  to  say,  a Council  of  the  Universal  Church,  without 
the  intervention  and  final  sanction  of  the  Head  and 
Pastor  of  the  whole  Church,  the  rock  upon  which  the 
Church  is  built;  and  the  infallibility  of  a General 
Council  is  inadmissible  without  the  formal  approval 
of  him  to  whom  the  care  of  the  whole  fiockwas  solemnly 
committed  by  Christ  Himself,  because  the  Episcopate 
cannot  be  separated  from  its  head.  (2)  General 
Councils  are  not  an  ahsolvie  and  indispensable  neces- 
sity for  the  teaching  and  government  of  the  Church, 
under  all  circumstances,  because  S.  Peter’s  oflB.ce  is 
ever  there  to  safeguard  the  teaching,  and  to  provide 
for  the  government  of  Christ’s  kingdom.  Accord- 


^ Page  93. 


112 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


ingly,  the  Church  existed  for  three  hundred  years 
without  a General  Council,  but  it  never  existed  with- 
out the  Chair  of  Peter.  On  the  other  hand,  as  a 
practical  means  of  attaining  more  fully  a given  object 
under  special  circumstances  a General  Council  may 
be  both  necessary  and  useful.  Hence,  General  Coun- 
cils have  ever  been  one  of  the  chief  means  of  teaching 
and  of  governing  the  Church,  and  when  really 
QEcumenical,  with  the  Supreme  Pontiff  as  Head, 
they  are  necessarily  infallible.  (3)  The  Pope  may  be 
present  at  an  Ecumenical  Council,  either  in  person, 
and  then  he  pronounces  his  judgment,  together  with, 
and  presiding  over  the  other  Bishops,  who  are  judges 
in  Council ; or  he  may  be  present  in  the  person  of  his 
legates.  These  legates,  in  their  turn,  may  attend 
the  Council  with  full  instructions  and  full  powers  to 
express  the  judgment  of  the  Pontiff,  and  to  formulate 
decrees  in  his  name,  or,  in  matters  which  require 
debating,  the  legates  may  appear  at  the  Council  with 
limited  powers,  and  with  the  obligation  of  referring 
the  decrees  issued  there  to  the  Homan  Pontiff,  for 
that  final  sanction  of  his  which  renders  those  decrees 
irrevocable, — absolutely  so  in  matters  of  faith  and 
morals,  and  relatively  so  in  questions  of  discipline. 
(4)  Whilst  the  Homan  Pontiff  possesses  the  fullest 
prerogatives  of  supremacy  and  infallibility,  he  is 
human,  and  must  use  them  in  relation  to  men  and 
the  conditions  of  mankind,  and  Councils  are  there- 
fore most  useful  as  a practical  means  of  extirpating 
heresies  throughout  the  world,  of  reforming  abuses. 


NICAEA 


113 


of  scattering  national  prejudices,  and,  by  means  of 
debate,  of  rendering  the  truth  more  manifest  in  the 
minds  of  the  Bishops  and  of  the  faithful.  Moreover, 
not  only  the  faithful  and  persons  well  disposed,  but 
heretics  and  schismatics  too,  are  naturally  more 
likely  to  be  reached  by  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  and 
to  be  more  unfailingly  impressed  by  the  solemnity 
of  its  action  in  union  with  the  Pope.  So  much  for 
Dr.  Oxenham’s  “ enormous  waste  of  time  and  labour.’^ 


(I-) 


The  Council  of  Nicaea  (325  a.d.) 

There  is  very  little  to  object  to  in  the  paragraph 
which  Dr.  Oxenham  gives  us  on  the  First  General 
Council  and  its  sixth  canon,  which  decreed  thus : 

That  the  old  custom  shall  hold  good  in  Egypt,  and 
Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  that  is,  that  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  has  authority  over  all  those  provinces; 
for  there  is  a similar  custom  with  reference  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  and  likewise  in  the  case  of  Antioch, 
and  the  other  provinces  let  the  old  rights  be  pre- 
served.”^ The  Pope  presided  at  this  Council  by  his 
Legates,  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  and  two  priests, 
Vito  and  Vincontius,  and  these  three  signed  first,  be- 
cause they  were  Papal  Legates,  and  before  Alexand- 
ria, Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.  Notice  how  the  Coun- 


^ Hefele.  History  of  Councils,  vol.  i.,  book  ii.,  cap.  ii.,  42. 
H 


114 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


cil  points  to  Rome  as  the  model  to  take  as  regards  the 
jurisdiction  of  a metropolitan  see.  Dr.  Oxenham 
appears  to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  is  not  only  the  successor  of  S.  Peter,  and 
Supreme  Pontiff  of  the  whole  Church,  hut  also  the 
first  Patriarch  of  the  West,  Primate  of  Italy,  Arch- 
bishop and  Metropolitan  of  the  Roman  province. 
Leo  XIII.  bears  these  titles  to-day.  Consequently, 
we  can  quite  agree  with  Dr.  Oxenham  when  he  says : 

It  is  plain  from  this  canon  (6th)  that  the  Council 
of  Xicaea  recognised  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  a metro- 
politan, having  jurisdiction  over  all  the  province  of 
Rome,  just  as  the  Bishops  of  Antioch,  Alexandria, 
and  the  other  metropolitans  had  jurisdiction  each  in 
his  own  particular  province.  Thus  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  was,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Council  of  Xicaea, 
Metropolitan  in  his  own  province.”  Where  we  can- 
not be  at  one  with  Dr.  Oxenham  is  in  tKe  very  last 
words  of  his  paragraph,  for  he  adds : ‘‘  and  he  was 
nothing  more.”^  That  is  precisely  what  we  deny,  on 
the  grounds  which  we  have  already  explained 
throughout  these  pages. 


(n.) 

The  Sardican  Canon 

Dr.  Oxenham  admits  that  the  “ Council  of  Sardica  ” 
was  not  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  and  we  need  not 
stop  to  discuss  how  far  the  Sardican  Canons  consti- 


1 Page  95. 


SAEDICA 


115 


tuted  a separate  Council,  or  were  practically  an  ap- 
pendix to  the  Council  of  ISTicaea.  Suffice  it  to  say 
that  the  statement  that  “ its  canons  were  never 
received  at  all  in  the  East  is  inaccurate,  because 
these  canons  were  received  later  on  in  the  Eastern 
Churches,  and  were  incorporated  in  their  codes.^  But 
.what  concerns  us  here  is  that  the  Sardican  decree  it- 
self, far  from  proving  Dr.  Oxenham’s  point,  proves 
just  the  contrary.  He  places  the  matter  before  us 
in  the  following  way : — “ But  then  arose  the  question, 
What  should  be  done  supposing  some  Bishop  should 
complain  that  his  own  metropolitan,  or  his  provincial 
synod,  had  not  dealt  justly  with  him?  Was  there 
to  be  no  further  appeal?”^  And  then  Dr.  Oxenham 
speaks  of  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  in  Spain,  pre- 
siding over  the  Council,  without  mentioning  that  this 
prelate  of  a local  and  distant  see  presided  because  he 
was  Papal  Legate — that  right  therefore  being  already 
acknowledged  as  a matter  of  course,  even  in  those 
early  days.  The  Sardican  Canon  is  then  given  us  by 
Dr.  Oxenham,  in  the  form  of  a proposal  by  Hosius, 
quoted  from  Hefele’s  version,  as  follows : — ‘‘  If  it 
please  you,  let  us  honour  the  memory  of  the  blessed 
Apostle  Peter  by  allowing  those  who  Eave  looked 
into  the  case  {i.e.,  the  case  of  any  who  complained  of 
injustice)  to  write  to  Julius,  Bishop  of  Home;  and  if 
he  thinks  the  case  ought  to  be  reconsidered,  let  him 

^ Page  95. 

2 The  Prim.  Ch.  and  the  See  of  Rome,  by  L.  Rivington,  page  181. 

^ Page  96. 


116 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


reopen  the  case  and  appoint  judges.” ^ Now,  what 
does  all  this  imply?  It  is  simply  the  condemnation 
of  the  theory  of  national  Churches.  The  ultimate 
appeal  of  a Bishop  against  his  Metropolitan,  and  his 
own  Provincial  Synod,  is  to  go  to  the  Bishop  of  Borne. 
Why  Borne,  always  Borne?  Dr.  Oxenham  tells  us 
that  here  we  have  a great  Council  of  Western 
Bishops  allowing  the  Bishop  of  Borne  to  receive 
appeals  from  beyond  his  own  province,  as  if  it  were 
something  quite  new,  as  indeed  it  was,  and  then 
directing  him  what  he  is  to  do  if  any  appeal  should  be 
made  to  him.”^  This  is  absolutely  contrary  to  the 
obvious  evidence  of  the  text,  which  speaks  of  honour- 
ing the  memory  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter.”  It 
was  anything  but  a new  idea,  and  the  appeal  was  to 
be  made  to  Borne,  therefore,  because  the  Bishop  of 
Borne  was  the  successor  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter. 
And,  by  the  by,  has  Dr.  Oxenham  forgotten  that  he 
questioned  the  fact  of  S.  Peter  being  Bishop  of  Borne  ? 
What  does  the  Sardican  canon  tell  him  in  connection 
with  that  point  ? Moreover,  the  decree  says  that  the 
Pope  is  to  decide  whether  the  case  is  to  be  reopened  or 
not,  and  that  he,  no  one  else,  is  to  appoint  the  judges. 
And  he  is  to  be  free  to  send  a legate  to  discuss  the 
case,  either  by  himself,  or  with  the  other  Bishops  of 
the  province  in  proximity  with  the  one  in  which  the 
case  arose.3  What  could  be  more  fatal  to  Dr.  Oxen- 


^ Page  96.  ^ Page  97. 

^Diss.  Hist.  Eccl.,  vol.  ii.,  Jungmann. 


SAEDICA 


117 


ham’s  conclusion?  S.  Athanasius,  speaking  of  the 
Council  of  Tyre,  and  of  the  Bishops  who  had  acted 
against  him,  writes  thus : both  they  and  we  were 
summoned.”^  They  were  summoned  by  Pope  Julius, 
who  is  the  Pontiff  named  in  the  very  document  be- 
fore us.  And  S.  Athanasius  gives  us  a letter  of  that 
same  Pope,  who,  with  reference  to  the  Bishops  who 
upheld  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Tyre,  writes  thus : 

Why  was  nothing  said  to  us  about  the  Church  of 
Alexandria  in  particular?  If,  then,  any  suspicion 
rested  upon  the  bishop  there,  notice  thereof  ought  to 
have  been  sent  to  the  Church  of  this  place  (Pome) ; 
whereas,  after  neglecting  to  inform  us,  and  proceed- 
ing on  their  own  authority  as  they  pleased,  now  they 
desire  to  obtain  our  concurrence  in  their  decisions.  . 
. . Not  so  have  the  directions  of  the  Fathers  pre- 

scribed. This  is  another  form  of  procedure,  a novel 
practice.  . . . What  we  have  received  from  the 

blessed  Apostle  Peter,  that  I signify  unto  you.”^ 
How  can  Dr.  Oxenham,  in  the  face  of  such  evidence, 
speak  of  the  Sardican  canon  as  a novelty,  and  say  that 
it  was  “ extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 
Pome  and  conferring  on  him  a measure  of  authority 
which  he  had  not  before  possessed  ” Pope  Julius 
is  able  to  point  to  antiquity  and  tells  us  that  the 
novelty  ” is  to  be  found  in  the  opposite  course. 


^Apol.  con.  Arian.  1. 

2 Athan.  Hist.  Tract. , Lib.  of  Fathers,  page  56. 
^ Page  97. 


118 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


(III.) 

The  Second  General  Council  (381  a.d.) 

There  exists  a so-called  canon  of  the  Second  General 
Council,  which  is  thus  recited : The  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople shall  hold  the  first  rank  next  to  the  Bishop 
of  Eome,  because  Constantinople  is  new  ITome.”^  I 
describe  it  as  a “ so-called  ” canon,  because  S.  Leo 
assures  us  that  it  was  the  work  of  only  certain 
Bishops,”  and  Canon  Bright,  an  Anglican  authority, 
tells  us  that  it  gives  an  unfaithful  representation  of 
the  facts,  and  that  “it  is  certain  that  the  Bishop  of 
Eome  enjoyed  this  pre-eminence  not  simply  because 
this  city  was  Eome,  but  also  because  he  held  the  chair 
of  Peter.”2  Dr.  Oxenham  presents  this  so-called 
canon  to  his  readers  as  a Canon  of  the  Council,  but  we 
do  not  possess  documentary  evidence  of  the  discus- 
sions of  the  Council,  and  if  this  so-called  canon  was  in 
any  way  brought  forward  at  the  Council,  it  could 
only  be  the  proposal  of  a few  of  the  150  Fathers  pre- 
sent, “ certain  bishops  ” as  S.  Leo  tells  us,  and  there- 
fore not  a Canon  of  the  Council.  A general  Synod 
of  Western  Bishops  refused  to  acknowledge  it  as  a 
Canon  of  the  Church,  and  the  evidence,  as  far  as  it  is 
available,  shows  that  it  was  never  appealed  to  in  all 
the  troubles  between  Theophilus  and  Chrysostom,  nor 


^ Hefele.  Hist,  of  Councils,  vol.  ii.,  book  vii.,  page  98. 
^ Hist,  of  the  Church,  page  178. 


CONSTANTINOPLE 


119 


is  it  mentioned  as  a Canon  even  in  the  earliest  Greek 
records.  And  after  all,  Dr.  Oxenham  is  a Western! 
He  himself  seems  to  feel  uncertain  about  his  own 
argument,  for  he  remarks  that  happily  we  are  not 
obliged  to  rely  on  any  inference,  obvious  or  doubt- 
fid”^  and  he  hurries  on  to  drop  the  matter  and  to 
discuss  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  where  he  feels 
more  at  home. 

The  chief  points  under  consideration  at  the  Council 
of  Constantinople,  were  the  maintenance  of  the 
Nicene  creed,  and  the  ordination  of  Flavian,  and  even 
Dr.  Oxenham  can  only  speak  of  the  so-called  canon 
as  containing  a brief  reference  to  the  Bishop  of 
B/Ome.’’2  He  should  have  reminded  his  readers  that 
in  that  brief  reference  the  question  of  the  Pope’s 
supremacy  was  not  under  consideration  at  all.  The 
so-called  canon  deals  with  the  subject  of  the  Patri- 
archates in  the  East  and  West.  The  Popes  had  wished 
to  reserve  for  the  See  of  Rome  the  Patriarchate  of  the 
West,  partly,  no  doubt,  because  Rome  was  the  old 
capital  of  the  Empire,  without  any  detriment  to  their 
special  prerogatives  as  occupants  of  the  See  of  Peter 
and  of  his  office  over  the  Universal  Church;  pre- 
rogatives, which,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  rest  upon 
any  ecclesiastical  organisation  made  by  the  Bishops 
of  Rome  or  by  any  one  else,  but  upon  the  Divine  pro- 
mises. The  Bishop  of  Rome  was,  by  Eis  own  will. 
Patriarch  of  the  West,  but  he  was  a great  deal  more. 


Page  100. 


120 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


by  the  will  of  Christ.  And  therefore  it  was  that  the 
Emperor  Theodosius,  at  that  same  period  of  history, 
did  not  hesitate  to  embody  the  general  belief  in  his 
decree:  “We  will  that  all  people  who  are  governed 
by  our  clemency  should  practise  the  same  religion  as 
the  divine  Apostle  Peter  delivered  to  the  Homans,  as 
the  religion  proclaimed  by  him  to  this  time  declares 
it;  and  which  it  is  clear  that  the  Pontiff  Damasus 
follows,  and  Peter,  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  a man 
of  apostolic  sanctity.  . , . Those  who  follow  this 

law  we  order  to  take  the  name  of  Catholic  Chris- 
tians.” As  Father  Hivington  remarks,  Theodosius, 
the  imperial  neophyte,  draws  a distinction  between 
Damasus,  whom  he  mentions  as  the  Pontiff,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Alexandria,  whom  he  refers  to  as  a man  of 
apostolic  sanctity,  and  whose  example  of  adherence 
to  the  religion  proclaimed  by  Peter  should  be  fol- 
lowed in  the  East.  Nor  do  we  discover  the  slightest 
indication  of  surprise  in  the  East  at  the  Emperor 
pointing  to  Home  and  the  See  of  Peter,  as  the  central 
authority,  and  the  seat  of  the  Pontiff  of  the  Christian 
religion.  1 And  that  is  sufficient  for  our  present  pur- 
pose. 


(lY.) 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon 

The  much  debated  question  of  the  28th  Canon, 
which  was  passed  by  one-third  of  the  Bishops  who 


^ See  the  Prim.  Ch.  and  the  See  of  Peter,  by  L.  Rivington,  page  245. 


CHALCEDON 


121 


had  sat  in  council  at  Chalcedon,  and  which  many 
have  endeavoured  to  foist  upon  us  as  a genuine  Canon 
of  that  (Ecumenical  Council,  is  a question  that  has 
many  ramifications,  and  we  can  only  discuss  it  here, 
within  the  limits  of  Dr.  Oxenham’s  line  of  argument. 
The  text  of  that  28th  Canon  is  given  us  by  Hefele, 
and  is  as  follows  in  Dr.  Oxenham’s  book: — “As  in 
all  things  we  follow  the  ordinances  of  the  holy 
Fathers,  and  as  we  know  the  recently-read  canon  of 
the  150  Bishops  (of  the  Council  of  Constantinople),  so 
do  we  decree  the  same  in  regard  to  the  privileges  of 
the  most  holy  Church  of  Constantinople,  which  is 
new  Dome.  Rightly,  therefore,  have  the  Fathers 
bestowed  upon  the  See  of  old  Rome  its  privileges  on 
account  of  its  character  as  the  imperial  city;  and 
moved  by  the  same  considerations  the  150  Bishops 
awarded  the  like  privileges  to  the  most  holy  See  of 
new  Rome;  judging,  with  good  reason,  that  the  city, 
which  has  the  honour  of  being  the  seat  of  the  Empire 
and  of  the  Senate,  and  which  enjoys  equal  (civil) 
privileges  with  old  Rome,  should  also  be  honoured 
with  equal  ecclesiastical  dignity,  and  should  hold  the 
second  place  next  to  that  of  old  Rome.” 

Now,  we  must  first  notice  that  here,  again,  the  docu- 
ment before  us  is  not  dealing  directly  with  the  special 
prerogatives  of  the  supremacy  and  infallibility  of 
Peter’s  successor,  but  with  the  question  of  the  Patri- 
archal position  of  Rome  and  of  Constantinople.  We 
phall  see  presently  how  those  who  drew  up  this  28th 
Canon  did  themselves  consider  the  See  of  Rome  to 


122 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


be  on  a totally  different  footing  to  Constantinople 
and  to  be  empowered  with  a supreme  authority.  Thi» 
canon  may  be  described  as  the  result  of  a plot,  on 
the  part  of  certain  Eastern  Bishops,  who,  supported 
by  the  civil  power,  were  intent  upon  obtaining  for 
Constantinople  a superiority  over  Alexandria  and 
Antioch,  in  opposition  to  what  had  been  settled  at 
Nicaea.  Accordingly,  they  appeal  to  the  fact  of 
Constantinople  enjoying  the  same  ‘‘  civil  ” privileges 
with  old  Borne,  and  to  her  being  the  “ seat  of  the  Em- 
pire and  of  the  Senate.”  This  28th  Canon  was  not 
included  in  the  programme  of  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don.  Two-thirds  of  the  Bishops  had  left,  after  con- 
cluding the  real  business  of  the  Council,  and  the 
Papal  Legates  refused  to  attend  this  appendix  to  the 
Council,  set  on  foot  by  a fraction  of  its  members. 
Not  one  of  the  Western  Bishops  was  present.  And 
it  was  under  these  circumstances  that  the  28th  Canon 
was  drawn  up.  How  can  Dr.  Oxenham  present  it  to 
us  as  a genuine  decree  and  canon  of  the  (Ecumenical 
Council  of  Chalcedon? 

The  Papal  Legates  proceeded  to  protest  energeti- 
cally against  the  novelty,  inconsistent  as  it  was  with 
the  Nicaean  settlement.  Their  powers,  as  regards 
the  Council  proper,  were  at  an  end,  but  they  followed 
the  instructions  which  they  had  received  from  Pope 
Leo,  and  protested  against  a measure  that  had  nothing 
to  support  it,  save  the  ambition  of  civil  and  political 
rule.  However,  even  the  Imperial  Commissioners 
declared  that  Borne  had  the  (Tr/awreta)  the  primacy. 


CHALCEDON 


123 


and  indeed  it  would  have  been  idle  to  question 
this,  nor  did  they  think  of  doing  so,  but  they  urged 
that  Constantinople  should  be  granted  in  the  East 
the  honorary  privileges  (TTpea-fSeia)  which  old  Rome 
possessed  in  the  West,  over  and  above  the  special  pre- 
rogatives reserved  to  the  See  of  Peter,  and  which  no 
one  could  question  or  claim  to  equal.  The  Patri- 
archate of  the  East  was  what  they  were  aiming  at. 
We  might  add,  perhaps,  in  regard  to  the  28th  Canon 
itself,  as  it  is  worded,  that  if,  when  speaking  of  the 
patriarchal  privileges,  it  be  said  that  “ the  Eathers  ’’ 
bestowed  them  upon  old  Rome,  first  and  foremost 
were  the  Bishops  of  Rome  themselves,  who  thus 
claimed  their  right  to  assume  patriarchal  privileges, 
besides  their  divinely  given  prerogatives,  and  that  the 
other  Fathers  can  only  be  said  to  have  “ bestowed  ” 
them,  inasmuch  that  they  fully  acknowledged  them. 

Dr.  Oxenham  admits  that  Pope  Leo  objected  to  the 
28th  Canon,  when  it  was  submitted  to  him.  Pope 
Leo  not  only  objected  to  it,  he  rejected  it.  And  not 
until  centuries  afterwards  did  the  Lateran  Council 
(1215  A.D.)  allow  Constantinople  the  position  which 
had  been  aspired  to  by  New  Rome,  and  only  when 
Antioch  and  Alexandria  had  forfeited  any  reasonable 
claim  to  their  former  preponderance.  But  the  28th 
Canon  was  never  accepted.  In  spite  of  the  Pope’s 
opposition,  the  decree  was  passed  by  those  compara- 
tively few  Bishops,  who  had  been  sitting  with  the 
others  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon;  and  then  what 
did  this  fraction  proceed  to  do  next  ? Dr.  Oxenham 


124 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


does  not  tell  his  readers,  but  we  shall  do  so.  Those 
very  Bishops  appealed  at  once  to  Pope  Leo,  and  used 
every  possible  endeavour  to  persuade  him  to  sanction 
what  they  had  accomplished.  This  appeal  is,  in 
itself,  most  significant.  They  wrote  to  the  Pontiff 
that  he  was  the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  Peter,” 
that  he  was  the  ‘‘father  of  Constantinople,”  that 
“ the  vineyard  had  been  entrusted  to  him  by  the 
Saviour  ” ; they  expressed  the  hope  that  as  the 
“ father  of  Constantinople  ” he  would  “ extend  his 
wonted  care  over  that  part  of  the  vineyard,”  and  they 
addressed  him,  saying : “ Thou  wast  constituted  the 
interpreter  of  the  voice  of  blessed  Peter  to  us  all,  and 
didst  bring  to  all  the  blessing  of  his  faith.  Whence 
we  also  show  the  inheritance  of  truth  to  the  children 
of  the  Church.”  1 This,  indeed,  was  according  to  the 
principle  laid  down  by  S.  Irenaeus,  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, that  every  Church  throughout  the  world  should 
resort  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  order  to  preserve  the 
faith  of  the  Apostles,  on  account  of  its  pre-eminent 
principality  and  authority.  Would  the  Anglican 
Bishops  write  in  these  terms  to-day  to  Pope  Leo 
XIII.  ? And,  if  not,  what  must  be  our  conclusion  ? 
S.  Leo  would  not  give  way,  and  Dr.  Oxenffam  tells  us 
that  “his  reason  for  objecting  is  that  this  decree  (28th 
Canon)  violates  the  ordinances  of  the  great  Council 
of  Nicaea,”  which,  he  says,  were  enacted  “ under  the 


1 Leo.  Ep.  98,  § 1. 


CHALCEDON 


125 


teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,”  and  ought  not  to  be 
altered.”^  Quite  so.  Does  not  this  remind  us  of 
the  words  of  the  decree  enacted  by  the  Apostles  at 
J erusalem : ‘‘  It  has  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  to  us”  ? S.  Leo  uses  the  most  powerful  argument 
that  he  could  use,  for  the  great  Council  of  Nicaea,  ap- 
proved by  the  Pope,  who  had  presided  over  it  by  his 
Legates,  was  the  first  (Ecumenical  Council,  after  the 
Council  of  J erusalem.  And  yet,  because  S.  Leo  does 
not  merely  reply  by  asserting  the  prerogatives  of  the 
See  of  Rome,  Dr.  Oxenham  would  have  us  accept  his 
conclusion  that  even  Pope  Leo,  “ great  champion  as 
he  was  of  Papal  rights,  even  he  did  not  hold  and  be- 
lieve that  theory  of  Papal  supremacy.”^  The  Bishops 
who  had  thus  appealed  to  Rome  and  failed  to  obtain 
the  Pontiff’s  sanction  for  their  28th  Canon,  remained 
recalcitrant  in  regard  to  it,  supported  as  they  were  by 
the  ambition  of  civil  authority.  But  what  of  that? 
Does  Dr.  Oxenham  hold  that  an  act  of  insubordination 
is  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  denying  the  existence  of 
a legitimate  authority,  or  that  it  always  and  neces- 
sarily implies  that  those  who  disobey  absolutely  reject 
that  authority,  especially  when  they  appeal  to 
it  and  assert  it,  as  those  very  Bishops  did.^ — To 
conclude,  the  28th  Canon  was  rejected  by  the  Pope, 
and  as  the  Pope’s  sanction  is  essential  in  order  to  con- 
stitute an  (Ecumenical  decree,  because  his  preroga- 


^ Page  104. 


2 Page  106. 


126 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


tives  of  universal  Shepherd  and  Eock  of  the  Church 
rest  upon  the  Divine  promise  contained  in  Holy 
Scripture,  it  is  idle  to  pretend  that  the  28th  Canon 
was  a decree  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Chalcedon. 


Conclusion 

There  was  a time  when  “ Merry  England  ” never 
doubted  the  prerogatives  of  S.  Peter  and  of  his  succes- 
sors, the  Bishops  of  Eome.  For  a thousand  years,  her 
clergy  and  her  laity,  her  Sovereigns  and  their  people, 
loved  to  abide  in  communion  with  the  Eock  upon 
which  the  Church  was  built,  and  to  cling  to  the  guid- 
ance and  rule  of  the  Chief  Shepherd.  Those  were  the 
days  of  Augustine,  of  Lancfranc,  of  Anselm  and  of 
Theobald,  of  Fisher,  and  of  More.  The  memories  of 
those  days  still  hover  round  the  great  Cathedrals  of 
England,  and  linger  in  her  Universities  and  Colleges, 
and  in  the  most  important  institutions  of  the  realm. 
Nor  can  history  be  written  without  placing  this 
on  record.  It  was  then  that  the  great  English  Doctor, 
Yenerable  Bede  (673-731  a.d.)  voiced  the  universal 
belief,  and  wrote  : “ And  therefore  did  Blessed  Peter, 
having  confessed  Christ  with  a true  faith  and  followed 
him  with  a true  love,  receive  in  a special  manner  the 
keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven  and  the  sovereignty  of 
judicial  power,  that  all  the  faithful  throughout  the 
world  might  understand  that  whosoever  separate  them- 
selves from  the  unity  of  faith  or  from  His  fellowship 


CONCLUSION 


127 


can  neither  be  released  from  the  chains  of  their  sins 
nor  enter  the  gate  of  the  heavenly  Kingdom/’^  It 
was  then,  too,  that  the  Prelates  of  the  Province  of 
Canterbury  (1318  a.d.)  addressed  the  Pope  in  terms 
such  as  these : ‘‘  We,  though  unworthy,  being  in- 
cluded in  your  pastoral  charge,  and  ourselves  derived, 
as  rivers  from  the  fountain-head,  from  the  exalted 
throne  of  the  Holy  Apostolic  See  . . . cast  our- 

selves at  your  feet,  who  hold  the  highest  Apostolic 
office  . . . your  servants,  and  the  servants  of 

your  Church  of  the  Province  of  Canterbury,  who  are 
ever  ready  to  obey  your  Apostolic  behests.  . . . 

Long  may  the  Papal  dignity,  reverenced  above  all 
others,  flourish  under  your  governance  of  the  Univer- 
sal Church.’’^  Qod  grant  that  those  days  may 
return  once  again,  and  banish  unbelief  and  doubt 
from  the  mind  of  the  English  people. 

A ‘‘  branch  theory  ” has  been  devised  as  a com- 
promise with  which  to  satisfy  the  yearnings  of  many 
an  aching  heart.  But,  alas ! without  avail.  We 
too  hold  a “ branch  theory,”  but  the  branch  theory 
of  which  our  Blessed  Saviour  spoke.  Branches  there 
are,  and  there  must  be,  in  the  One  Church,  but  not 
branches  without  a stem  and  cut  ofl  from  the  vine, 
with  their  leaves  scattered  “ High  ” and  “ Low  ” and 

Broad.”  Our  Lord  spoke  of  such  branches,  and 
said : ‘‘If  any  one  abide  not  in  Me,  he  shall  be  cast 


^ Horn.  lib.  16. 

2 Baigent’s  Registers,  pages  xii.  -xliv. , 90-93. 


128 


PAPAL  CLAIMS 


forth,  as  a branch,  and  shall  wither.”^  The  Church 
is  the  mystical  Body  of  Christ,  and  where  Peter  is, 
there  is  the  Church,  as  the  Fathers  said  of  old. 

When  Newihan  was  studying  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  in  the  hope  of  finding  arguments  in  behalf 
of  the  Anglican  position,  he  wrote  : “ It  was  difficult 
to  make  out  how  the  Eutychians  or  Honophysites 
were  heretics,  unless  Protestants  and  Anglicans  were 
heretics  also ; difficult  to  find  arguments  against 
the  Tridentine  Fathers,  which  did  not  tell  against 
the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon;  difficult  to  condemn  the 
Popes  of  the  sixteenth  century  without  condemning 
the  Popes  of  the  fifth.  The  drama  of  religion,  and 
the  combat  of  truth  and  error,  were  ever  the  same. 
The  principles  and  proceedings  of  the  Church  now 
were  those  of  the  Church  then;  the  principles  and 
proceedings  of  heretics  then  were  those  of  Protest- 
ants now.  I found  it  so — almost  fearfully;  there 
was  an  awful  similitude,  more  awful,  because  so 
silent  and  unimpassioned,  between  the  dead  records 
of  the  past  and  the  feverish  chronicle  of  the  present. 
The  shadow  of  the  fifth  century  was  on  the  sixteenth. 
It  was  like  a spirit  rising  from  the  troubled  waters 
of  the  old  world,  with  the  shape  and  lineaments  of 
the  new.  The  Church  then,  as  now,  might  be  called 
peremptory  and  stern,  resolute,  over-bearing,  and 
relentless;  and  heretics  were  shifting,  changeable, 
reserved,  and  deceitful,  ever  courting  the  civil  power. 


^ John  XV.  6. 


CONCLUSION 


129 


and  never  agreeing  together,  except  by  its  aid ; and 
the  civil  power  was  ever  aiming  at  comprehensions, 
trying  to  put  the  invisible  out  of  view,  and  substi- 
tuting expediency  for  faith.  What  was  the  use  of 
continuing  the  controversy  or  defending  my  position, 
if,  after  all,  I was  forging  arguments  for  Arius  or 
Eutyches,  and  turning  deviPs  advocate  against  the 
much-enduring  Athanasius  and  the  majestic  Leo? 
Be  my  soul  with  the  Saints ! and  shall  I 
lift  up  my  hand  against  them?  Sooner 
may  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning,  and 
wither  out-right,  as  his  who  once  stretched  it  out 
against  the  prophet  of  Godd  anathema  to  a whole 
tribe  of  Cranmers,  Ridleys,  Latimers,  and  Jewels ! 
perish  the  names  of  Bramhall,  IJssher,  Taylor, 
Stillingfleet,  and  Barrow  from  the  face  of  the  earth, 
ere  I should  do  ought  but  fall  at  their  feet  in  love 
and  in  worship,  whose  image  was  continually  before 
my  mind,  and  whose  musical  words  were  ever  in  my 
ears  and  on  my  tongue.”^ 

May  Dr.  Oxenham  reach  the  same  conclusion,  as 
he  reads  the  works  of  the  Fathers,  and  let  him  rest 
assured  that,  if  this  grace  is  bestowed  upon  him, 
he  will  have  no  truer  friend  than  the  author  of  these 
pages. 


^ Apol.  Part  V.,  page  211. 


I 


APPENDIX 


Vll 


Century  II, 

S.  Ieenaeus. — See  Appendix  p.  iv. 

Teetullian. — “ Was  anything  hidden  from  Peter, 
■who  was  called  the  Pock  whereon  the  Church  was 
to  be  built,  who  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  the  power  of  loosing  and  of  binding  in 
heaven  and  on  earth  ” (De  Praes.  Haer.  n.  22). 
When  a Montanist,  Tertullian  fell  into  the  error  of 
denying  that  the  “ heys  ” were  given  to  the  Church 
through  Peter y hut  whilst  expounding  his  error  he 
still  affords  us  evidence  of  the  general  hdief  of  the 
Churchy  hy  appealing  to  it  as  a basis  for  his  argument. 

Who  art  thou,  overthrowing  and  changing  the 
Lord’s  manifest  intention,  which  confers  this  on  Peter 
personally?  Upon  theey  He  says,  I will  build  My 
Church ; and  I will  give  to  thee  the  keys,  not  to  the 
Church;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind,  or  thou 
shalt  loose,  not  what  they  shall  bind,  or  they  shall 
loose.  ...  In  him  the  Church  was  built  up, 
that  is  to  say,  through  him.  He  first  placed  the  key 
in  the  lock.”  (De  Pudicitia,  21.) 


Century  III. 

Oeigen. — Peter  was  called  a Pock  by  the  Lord, 
for  to  him  is  said:  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this 
rock  I will  build  My  Church  ” (Comm,  in  Matt.  n. 
139).  When  the  chief  authority  in  relation  to  the 


Vlll 


APPENDIX 


feeding  of  the  sheep  was  delivered  to  Peter,  and  the 
Church  was  founded  on  him,  as  on  the  earth,”  etc. 
(In  Ep.  ad  Rom.  tom.  iv.  lib.  5),  “ and  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it — what  is  the  Is 
it  the  rock  upon  which  Christ  builds  the  Church,  or 
the  Church  ? The  expression,  indeed,  is  ambiguous, 
as  if  the  Rock  and  the  Church  were  one  and  the  same. 
I indeed  think  that  this  is  so,  and  that  neither  against 
the  Rock  upon  which  Christ  builds  His  Church,  nor 
against  the  Church,  shall  the  gates  of  £ell  prevail. 
. . . For  the  Church,  as  the  edifice  of  Christ,  who 

has  wisely  built  His  house  upon  a Rock,  cannot  be 
conquered  by  the  gates  of  hell,  which  may  prevail 
over  any  man  who  shall  be  ofi  the  Rock  and  outside 
the  Church,  but  shall  be  powerless  against  it  ” (Comm, 
in  Matt.  tom.  xii.  2).  “But,  as  it  was  befitting, 
notwithstanding  that  something  was  said  of  Peter  in 
common  with  those  who  should  thrice  admonish  the 
brethren,  that  Peter  should  be  endowed  with  some- 
thing peculiar  above  those  who  should  thrice  ad- 
monish ; this  was  previously  laid  down  regarding 
Peter,  thus : ‘ I will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,’  before  saying  and  ‘ whatsoever 
ye  shall  bind  on  earth,’  etc.  And,  indeed,  if  we 
carefully  consider  the  gospels,  even  there  we  may  see, 
regarding  those  things  which  appear  to  be  common 
to  Peter  and  to  those  who  have  thrice  admonished 
the  brethren,  much  difference  and  pre-eminence  in 
the  words  addressed  to  Peter  beyond  tFose  spoken 
in  the  second  instance”  (Comm,  in  Matt.  tom.  xiii. 


APPENDIX 


IX 


31).  [N.B. — It  is  quite  true  that  Origen  has  some- 

times interpreted  the  text  in  S.  Matthew  allegorically 
and  extended  its  meaning  without  destroying  the 
literal  interpretation.  See  Introductory,  p.  4.] 

S.  Cyprian  (See  page  95). — “There  is  one  Bap- 
tism, and  one  Holy  Spirit,  and  one  Church  founded 
by  Christ  our  Lord  upon  Peter,  as  the  source  and 
principle  of  unity’’  (Ep.  60,  ad  Januar.).  “For  to 
Peter,  upon  whom  He  built  the  Church,  and  from 
whom  He  prescribed  and  showed  that  unity  should 
originate,  the  Lord  first  gave  this  power,  that  that 
which  he  should  have  loosed  on  earth  should  be 
loosed  in  heaven”  (Ep.  73,  ad  Jubaian).  “ Peter  also, 
to  whom  the  Lord  committed  His  sheep  to  be  fed 
and  guarded,  on  whom  He  established  and  founded 
the  Church,  says  that  gold  and  silver  he  has  none 
. . .”  (He  Habitu.  Yirg.,  p.  356).  “ Peter  thus 

speaks,  upon  whom  the  Church  was  to  be  built,  teach- 
ing in  the  name  of  the  Church  ” (Ep.  69).  “ Peter, 

upon  whom  the  Church  was  founded  by  the  con- 
descendence of  God  ” (De  Bono  Patientiae). 


Century  IV. 

S.  Hilary  of  Poitiers — “ He  upbraided  Peter,  to 
whom  He  had  just  handed  the  Keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  upon  whom  He  was  to  build  the  Church, 
against  which  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  in  any 
way  prevail,  who,  whatsoever  he  should  bind  or  loose 


X 


APPENDIX 


on  earth,  that  should  remain  bound  or  loosed  in 
heaven.  . . . Peter,  the  first  to  confess  the  Son 

of  God,  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  the  door-keeper 
of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  and  in  his  judgment  on 
earth  a judge  of  heaven  ’’  (Tract,  in  Ps.  131,  4). 
“ Peter  is  the  first  to  believe,  and  is  the  Prince  of 
the  Apostleship  ” (Comm,  in  Matt.,  c.  7).  “ For  this 

will  appear  to  be  the  best,  and  by  far  the  most  suit- 
able thing,  that  to  the  head,  that  is,  to  the  See  of 
the  Apostle  Peter,  the  priests  of  the  Lord  refer  from 
each  one  of  the  provinces  ’’  (Ex  Epist.  Sard.  Cone, 
ad  Julium.  9). 

S.  Optatus  of  Milevis. — “ If  thou  dost  not  know, 
learn;  if  thou  knowest,  blush.  To  thee  ignorance 
cannot  be  ascribed;  it  follows,  therefore,  that  thou 
knowest.  To  err  knowingly  is  a sin,  for  the  ignorant 
are  sometimes  pardoned.  Thou  canst  not  then  deny 
but  thou  knowest  that,  in  the  city  of  Pome,  the 
episcopal  chair  was  first  conferred  on  Peter,  wherein 
might  sit  of  all  the  Apostles  the  head,  Peter,  whence 
he  was  called  Cephas,  that  in  that  one  chair  unity 
might  be  preserved  by  all;  nor  the  other  Apostles 
each  contend  for  a distinct  chair  for  himself,  and 
that  whosoever  should  set  up  another  chair  against 
the  single  chair  might  at  once  be  a schismatic  and  a 
sinner.  . . . Peter  therefore  first  occupied  that 

pre-eminent  chair,  which  is  the  first  of  the  marks  [of 
the  Church] ; to  him  succeeded  Linus,  to  Linus  suc- 
ceeded Clement,^’  etc.,  etc.  . . . “ You  who  wish  to 


APPENDIX 


XI 


claim  to  yourselves  tlie  holy  Churcli,  tell  us  the  origin 
of  your  chair  ” (De  Schism.  Donat,  lib.  2).  “ Whence 

is  it,  then,  that  you  strive  to  usurp  for  yourselves  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  you  who  sacrilegiously 
fight  against  the  chair  of  Peter  by  your  presumption 
and  audacity  ? ...  Of  the  aforesaid  marks,  then, 

the  chair  is,  as  we  have  said,  the  first,  which  we  have 
proved  is  ours  through  Peter,  and  this  first  mark 
brings  with  it  the  angel  ” (ib.). 

S.  Ambrose. — “ It  is  that  same  Peter  to  whom  He 
said : Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I will  build 
My  Church.  Therefore,  where  Peter  is,  there  is  the 
Church;  where  the  Church  is,  there  death  is  not, 
but  life  eternal  ” (In  Ps.  40).  “ Petor,  after  having 

been  tempted  by  the  devil,  is  set  over  the  Church. 
Therefore,  the  Lord  signified  what  that  was,  that  He 
afterwards  chose  him  to  be  the  pastor  of  the  Lord’s 
fiock  ” (In  Ps.  43).  “ Who  else  could  promptly  make 

this  profession  for  himself  ? And,  therefore,  because 
he  alone  amongst  all  makes  this  profession,  he  is  set 
before  all.  . . . And  now  he  is  not  commanded, 

as  at  first,  to  feed  His  lambs,  nor  His  younger  sheep, 
as  in  the  second  instance,  but  His  sheep,  that  the 
more  perfect  might  govern  the  more  perfect  ” (Exp. 
in  Luc.  lib.  40).  “ For  they  have  not  Peter’s  inherit- 

ance who  have  not  Peter’s  chair,  which,  with  impious 
discord,  they  rend  asunder”  (De  Poen.  t.  2,  lib.  5). 
‘‘  Faith,  therefore,  is  the  foundation  of  fhe  Church, 
for  not  of  Peter’s  flesh,  but  of  his  faith  was  it  said 
that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it ; but 


Xll 


APPENDIX 


that  confession  conquered  hell.  And  this  confession 
has  banished  more  than  one  heresy;  for  whilst  the 
Church,  like  a good  ship,  is  often  lashed  by  many 
waves,  the  foundation  of  the  Church  ought  to  have 
power  to  withstand  every  heresy  ” (De  Inc.  t.  2,  c.  4). 

S.  Jeeome  (See  page  89). — “ But  you  say  that  the 
Church  is  built  upon  Peter,  though  elsewhere,  the 
same  thing  is  done  upon  all  the  Apostles,  and  all 
receive  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  never- 
theless, one  is  chosen  out  of  the  twelve  in  order  that 
a head  being  appointed,  the  occasion  of  schism  should 
be  eliminated  ’’  (Adv.  J ov.  t.  2). 

Eusebius. — “ The  providence  of  the  universal  Ruler 
led  as  it  were  by  the  hand  to  Rome,  Peter,  that  most 
powerful  and  great  one  of  the  Apostles,  and,  on 
account  of  his  virtue,  the  leader  of  the  rest,  against 
that  sad  destroyer  of  the  human  race.  He,  like  a 
noble  general  of  God,  armed  with  heavenly  weapons, 
brought  the  precious  merchandise  of  intellectual  light 
from  the  East  to  those  who  dwelled  in  the  West” 
(H.E.  lib.  2). 

S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem. — “ Peter,  the  chief est  and 
foremost  of  the  Apostles,  thrice  denied  the  Lord  in 
presence  of  a little  maid,  but,  being  moved  to  repent- 
ance, he  wept  bitterly”  (Catech.  2,  15).  *‘And  all 
being  silent  (for  it  was  beyond  man  to  learn),  Peter, 
the  foremost  of  the  Apostles  and  chief  herald  of  the 
Church,  not  using  words  of  his  own,  nor  persuaded 


APPENDIX 


Xlll 


by  human  reasoning,  but  with  his  mind  enlightened 
by  the  Father,  says  to  Him:  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
nor  simply  that,  but  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  And 
a blessing  follows  the  utterance.  . . . Blessed  art 

thou,”  etc.  (Catech.  11,  3). 

S.  Ephraem. — Have  they  not  even  respected  the 
sentence  of  the  Apostle,  who  condemns  such  as  say, 
I am  of  Cephas?  But,  if  the  sheep  were  bound  to 
refuse  the  name  of  Cephas,  notwithstanding  that  he 
was  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  had  received 
the  keys,  and  was  accounted  the  shepherd  of  the  flock, 
what  execration  is  to  be  deemed  too  dreadful  for  him 
who  does  not  dread  to  designate  sheep  that  are  not 
his  by  his  own  name  ? ” (Serm.  56,  adv.  Haer.). 
“We  hail  thee,  Peter,  the  tongue  of  the  disciples, 
the  voice  of  the  heralds,  the  eye  of  the  Apostles,  the 
keeper  of  heaven,  the  first-bom  of  those  that  bear 
the  keys  ” (t.  3,  Gr.  in  SS.  Ap.). 

S.  Gregory  of  Nyssa. — “ Peter  associates  himself 
with  the  Lamb,  with  his  whole  soul,  and  by  means 
of  the  change  of  his  name,  he  is  changed  by  the  Lord 
into  something  more  divine ; instead  of  Simon,  being 
both  called  and  having  become  a Pock  (Peter)  ” 
(Horn.  15  in  Cant.  Cantic.).  “ Through  Peter  He 
gave  to  the  Bishops  the  key  of  the  heavenly 
honours  ” (De  Castig.  t.  2). 

S.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum. — “ Seest  thou  that  of 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  all  of  whom  were  great  and 


XIV 


APPENDIX 


worthy  of  the  choice,  one  is  called  a Pock,  and  is 
entrusted  with  the  foundations  of  the  Church  ’’ 
(t.  1.  or.  26).  “ Peter,  who  became  the  unbrok 

Rock,  and  to  whom  the  Keys  were  delivered  ’’  (t. 
Carm.  2). 

S.  Epiphanius. — “ And  the  Blessed  Peter,  who  for 
awhile  denied  the  Lord ; Peter,  who  was  the  chiefest 
of  the  Apostles,  he  who  became  unto  us  truly  a firm 
Rock  upon  which  is  based  the  Lord’s  faith,  upon 
which  the  Church  is  in  every  way  built.  . . . 

Moreover,  he  then  also  became  a firm  Rock  of  the 
building,  and  foundation  of  the  house  of  God,  in 
that  having  denied  Christ,  and  being  again  converted, 
being  both  found  of  the  Lord,  and  found  worthy  to 
hear:  Feed  My  sheep  and  feed  My  lambs”  (Adv. 
Haer.  59).  “ He  heard  from  that  same  God : Peter, 

feed  My  lambs ; to  him  was  entrusted  the  fiock ; he 
leads  the  way  admirably  in  the  power  of  his  own 
Master”  (In  Anchor,  t.  2 9). 

S.  John  Chrysostom. — See  page  48. 


Century  F. 

S.  Augustine. — “ In  these  words  of  the  Apostolic. 
See — ancient  and  solidly  built  as  it  is — the  Catholic 
faith  is  so  certain  and  clear  that  it  is  not  lawful  for 
Christians  to  call  it  in  question  ” (Ep.  157).  See 
page  44. 


APPENDIX 


XV 


S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria. — See  page  52. 

Council  of  Ephesus. — In  tkis  tlurd  General 
Council  of  the  Church  the  Pope’s  Legate  thus 
addressed  the  two  hundred  Bishops  there  assembled : 
“ It  is  doubtful  to  none,  yea,  rather,  it  has  been  known 
to  all  ages,  that  the  holy  and  most  Blessed  Peter,  the 
prince  and  head  of  the  Apostles,  the  pillar  of  the 
faith,  the  foundation  of  the  Catholic  Church,  received 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Saviour  and  Pedeemer  of  the  human  race,  and 
to  him  was  given  power  to  bind  and  to  loose  sins; 
who  even  to  the  present  day,  and  always,  both  lives 
and  judges  in  his  successors.  In  accordance,  there- 
fore, with  this  order  his  successor,  who  holds  his 
place,  our  holy  and  most  blessed  Father  Celestine, 
has  sent  us  to  this  Synod  to  supply  his  presence  ” 
(Concil.  Eph.  Act.  3,  Labbe.  t.  3). 


Pi'inteci  by  William  Hodge  Co.,  Glasgow  and  Edinburgh 


K 


DOES  NOT  CIRCULATE 


21940 


COLLEGE 


9031  01143064  2 


DOES  MOT  CmCDLATE 


dcL  VaL 

J ^ 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS 
CHESTNUT  HUJU  MASS. 


Inks  muf  bt  kept  lor  evo  vmIu  and  auj  be 
tentvad  lor  tbr  mae  prriod,  mleaa  emryd. 

Two  ecata  • day  U chargad  for  rack  book  kept 


II  yoo  cannot  Sad  what  yoo  wantt  aak  tb« 
Ubrariaa  who  wiO  bo  glad  to  help  yoa. 

Hm  borrofwar  ia  rcapoaaibit  for  booka  drawn  on 
bn  card  and  for  all  Saaa  accraing  on  tha  aasw. 


